Talk:United States of America

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived discussions

Gun carrying information?[edit]

New contributor User:WheelGun has been adding a good deal of gun related information to this article as well as other US articles.

Just as a check to ensure that remain a travel guide and not a compendium of facts, how much of this is truly relevant to the traveler? An American traveler may find this of use since gun laws in New York are different from (say) Tennessee, but for the international traveler the specifics are often irrelevant. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it might be relevant to know where an openly carried gun is called "Tuesday" and where it definitely and decidedly means trouble. Either misapprehension can be dangerous... What we should avoid is weighing in on either side of the debate and providing too much detail in articles like USA or South. Most of those things seem to be based on state laws and thus best addressed in state articles where travel relevant... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
"Travelling with firearms" is probably a travel topic worth starting since a sentence or two in each state article is more than enough info for the vast majority of travelers, but for those who do travel with weapons it is important to provide sufficient detail to make appropriate plans. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Already exists at Recreational shooting#United States of America? 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:9B 00:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I like Ryan's suggestion. I would say issues around carrying a handgun for personal protection are not well covered under 'recreational shooting'. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I was pleasantly surprised that the section does actually seem to be written for the traveler from a neutral standpoint. I would say that the information is potentially helpful, but it isn't completely focused as a "Stay safe" topic, which should specifically address an issue or non-issue that people may think is an issue related to safety. This article mixes in hunting/sport advice with danger advise. Is it true that renouncing your citizenship means you cannot carry a gun for any reason in the US? I learned something there I never knew. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I support Ryan's suggestion, too. And I imagine User:WheelGun would probably be happy to contribute his great knowledge to the topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
We do need to decide if we need to pare down the info in existing articles, though. We don't have a policy similar to w:WP:Undue weight, but I am a little concerned about the level of detail being placed. Powers (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the solution is to have all the details that could be relevant to any traveler in the Travelling with firearms topic and then having brief summaries in articles where that's relevant, with a pointer to the topic article as appropriate, rather as we've done with airport articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
WheelGun says: My knowledge of firearms was just an entry point into this venture, I certainly do not plan to write a compendium of firearms legal advice (unless you want me to...) I have elaborated on many topics since then. Be advised that upstate NY is a crossroads of many cultures, very far right politically, and Ultra left wing NYC is two hours away. Upstaters trying to make a living on hardscrabble land and down-staters who think this is their big backyard. Just trying to mitigate culture clashes that happen all the time, and enable everyone to get along better. (No resentment here - I am originally from Brooklyn) Yes it is a safety issue - the NY state police will throw you in jail for crossing from PA or VT with a handgun. Happens way too often around here. Take a look at what I have done with CATSKILLS, NEW YORK over the past day. —The preceding comment was added by WheelGun (talkcontribs)
We wouldn't be giving legal advice, just practical advice similar to the advice you've been giving. I think that a topic on travelling with firearms would be useful to some of our readers. Have a look at some of our other travel topic articles and see what you think. On your other points, everything you're saying is really welcome and useful information for any traveller who's at all interested in what the place they're visiting is like, beyond the trees, farms, bears, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
We currently have a recreational shooting article which is mostly about hunting with a bit of range target practice. Perhaps that article should be split to put the Elmer Fudd stuff in hunting (so that, like fishing, it's a standalone topic) and the rest in travelling with firearms? K7L (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Upstate NY is not "very far right politically". Upstaters may be somewhat fiscally conservative, but hardly "far right", and they are socially moderate. Many oppose draconian gun regulations but support moderate ones, and support for abortion and gay marriage is fairly split. If you think upstate is "far right", try visiting the deep South or the Great Plains sometime. Powers (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Enough... read what I have written. It's been blended in to general topics. Has anyone seen what I have done to the Catskills section recently or are we just going back and forth? Ikan Kekek thank you for the support. LtPowers, are you prior service? —The preceding comment was added by User:WheelGun (talkcontribs)
"prior service"? Powers (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Stay safe/Racism[edit]

User:The dog2 just added the following text:

The constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech, meaning that a person cannot be prosecuted for any form of verbal abuse, racially-motivated or not (but can be for racially-motivated violence). While attitudes towards racism differ widely from region to region, the prevailing culture of political correctness means that it is rare for individuals to express racist opinions in public. The US is, at least publicly, a racially tolerant nation. Many states have laws against racial discrimination in the job market or university admissions.

There are a series of problems with it:

First, it's absolutely false that people can under no circumstances be prosecuted for any form of verbal abuse. Harassment is illegal. Being called a racial epithet once is not a crime, but someone who yelled one all night outside your door could be guilty of various crimes, including disorderly conduct. Chances are, the police, if called, might just tell the person to knock it off, but let's take another case: Suppose you have a manager at work who is constantly calling you racial epithets. You might have the basis for a civil rights lawsuit, based on your being in a hostile work environment. Now, do we really want to explain all that on Wikivoyage? No. But I think we need to simplify things by stating that racist speech per se is legally protected in the U.S. as part of the Constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Second, at this time, with Donald Trump leading in the Republican Presidential primaries, it absolutely is not rare for Americans to express racist opinions in public.

Thirdly, racial discrimination on the job market or college admissions is Constitutionally prohibited nationwide as a result of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, it did take quite a bit of time to enforce that decision in the various states, especially down south, but it is quite misleading to point to state laws and ignore the fact that racial discrimination is illegal nationwide. That doesn't mean it doesn't still happen, and some recent Supreme Court decisions have weakened civil rights enforcement in important ways, but Brown v. Board of Ed is long since settled law.

I think it's a good idea to deal with racism in this article (please note the 4th sentence of "Stay safe/Police", which does so briefly and with content that can be easily proven if challenged), but in a "Stay safe" section, the important points would address first of all potential threats to a person's life and liberty (e.g., unwarranted police stopping and frisking of non-white people, police brutality, attacks by armed or unarmed racists, inequities in the justice system) and secondly, to their equal treatment (e.g., the tendency for store personnel to follow black customers around on the presumption that they must be shoplifters). We need to do this briefly and keep it relevant and not unduly alarmist. As for the rest, it's best to deal with background information in "Understand", briefly but accurately. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the US constitutional guarantee on "freedom of speech" means that you can say whatever you like without facing any consequences, but if my impression of how far it goes is wrong, feel free to change it. I am not a legal expert so I do not know the details of the laws.
As for the part of expressing racist opinions, I get you point about Donald Trump, and I don't deny that it does happen. But as far as I can see, Donald Trump is among the minority who will actually publicly voice their racist opinions. There definitely is a strong culture of political correctness in the US, so I will say that the majority of people wouldn't actually dare to voice out racist opinions. I'm not saying that you don't have a lot of racist people, but at the same time, the culture of political correctness means that whatever racist opinions people may have is usually bottled up inside and not publicly expressed. My take on why Trump is so popular is that all these racist comments he is making are what people truly feel, but due to the prevailing culture of political correctness do not dare to articulate in public. So when someone like Trump comes along, and with the presidential primaries being a secret ballot, people would vote for him since he dares to say things they would never dare to, and in theory people would never find out how you voted due to the secrecy of the ballot.
And for your third point, go ahead and change it if I was wrong, I know that at least in the places I've lived, there are laws against racial discrimination in the job market and college admissions, but I'm not sure if those are federal or state laws. But I do think we should at least briefly point out that such laws do exist. The dog2 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
A majority of people don't have to openly express racist sentiments in order for it not to be "rare for individuals to express racist opinions in public". And it's not just now. The open expression of racist sentiments increased during the 2008 campaign, with the encouragement of Sarah Palin, and has continued throughout the Obama Administration, as supporters of white supremacy stewed while a black president was in office. You seem to be focusing only on the politicians, not their supporters; you seem to be under a misimpression that their supporters are just quiet consumers and are less pointedly racist than the politicians they're supporting, whereas the reverse is often true: They're more, and more violently racist. I don't think "a majority of people avoid racist remarks" is that useful a statement. On laws against racial discrimination: Sure there are state laws, but the main point is that it's illegal under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was finally interpreted correctly again by the Supreme Court starting in 1954, with a number of important pieces of U.S. legislation passed both during the post-Civil War Reconstruction era and again starting in the 1960s, reinforced by several other landmark Supreme Court decisions and aggressive enforcement during the Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon Administrations, among others (though not the Reagan Administration).
I'm not sure you really dealt with the gist of my argument, though:
but in a "Stay safe" section, the important points would address first of all potential threats to a person's life and liberty... and secondly, to their equal treatment. We need to do this briefly and keep it relevant and not unduly alarmist. As for the rest, it's best to deal with background information in "Understand", briefly but accurately.
We don't want to bloat this article unnecessarily, we need to keep it focused on the reader who may travel to and within the U.S. and situations they may encounter, and we should particularly avoid misleading generalizations and downright incorrect statements. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you that we should not sensationalise issues, and we should keep the section concise, accurate and relevant for travellers. I probably got some details wrong since I did not study the U.S. legal system in detail, and I have also not been to every single part of the U.S., so go ahead and correct those whatever mistakes I made.
I don't know what you think, but I do think there are several points that definitely should be mentioned in this section though. Please let me know what you think of my points, and go ahead and re-write the section to make it more suitable for the article. A local like you would probably be more familiar with stuff than a foreigner like me.
  • The U.S. constitution guarantees freedom of speech, so it is not illegal to make racist comments. We probably do not need to elaborate further, but this does mean that if someone walks past you and makes a racist remark towards you, there is nothing you can do since it is his/her right to freedom of speech under the U.S. constitution.
  • There are laws against racial discrimination in employment or university admissions. I would say this is relevant since many travellers to the U.S. are here to work or study.
  • I don't know about what it's like in the rural South, but as a non-white person myself, I have never experienced any open aggression from random guys in the street on the basis of my race. So while racism definitely does exist, I think it is important to note that as a traveller, at least in the more liberal and multicultural parts of the U.S., your chances of being targeted for racial abuse from random people while walking down the street is very slim. There may well be regional differences, and I won't be surprised if open racism is more common in the South than in the big touristy cities like New York, Chicago or San Francisco, so if that is true, then I think it does warrant a mention. I don't think we need to go into details about American racial politics since it goes way beyond the scope of a travel guide.
  • As for more subtle forms of racism like police brutality and the like, I haven't been in the U.S. long enough to know first hand how serious the problem is. Personally, I have never been stopped and frisked by police, and neither have I been arrested before. But if that is likely to be an issue for travellers, please go ahead and add it in, since I wouldn't know what to write.
The dog2 (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I already added what I thought was necessary and important about dealing with cops in the "Police" subsection. I agree that random acts of aggression by civilians against people merely based on their color are quite uncommon in the U.S. Yes, it should be stated that discrimination in employment, college admissions and treatment at public accommodations is illegal and can be punished if the victim wants to sue. But parenthetically, I would say to you, if you are not familiar with Brown v. Board of Education, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, there are basic things about U.S. history you don't know or understand, and it's not the case that only "legal experts" are familiar with the basic facts about these things. Brown v. Board of Ed absolutely could be mentioned in "Understand", as could Plessy v. Ferguson (which you also don't need to be a "legal expert" to know about), but let's remember that we're trying to avoid bloat and keep this article as travel-focused as possible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

(indent) I still think it's interesting that we have so much talk about race, anti-Islamic sentiments, etc in the US but why does no one care about these issues in Europe where they seem even worse in most cases? I get that we have a lot of Americans and US-travelers, so there are more people looking at and thinking about this article, but as I said way above when this section was first created, we're really treating the US as "special" when it's neither special nor is it likely the worst case. I appreciate The dog2 for chiming in as a non-white. It's nice to talk WITH people instead of talking ABOUT a group and trying to formulate their everyday experiences from a few high-profile news articles. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I am white as white can be and I have to agree on the "US is probably not the worst place in this regard" point. When my girlfriend (who is not white) visited me in Dresden, she experienced an instance of insults based on the color of her skin. And just recently a woman at the supermarket shouted at some people who are presumably of foreign ancestry something along the lines of "Can't you behave in a foreign country". I am of course no expert on this, but I fear some parts of Europe have huge problems with racists and racism. But as a white person I observe, let alone experience probably only a small fraction of what actually happens. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
And I must say that having lived in Australia before, you definitely get a lot more racial jokes in Australia than in the US. I don't want to misrepresent Australians so I will point out here that in general, stereotypes are not as offensive to Australians as they are to Americans, so some of it may be misconstrued as racism by Americans when Australians see them as nothing more than jokes. And of course, as I previously mentioned, there is a strong culture of political correctness at least in the more liberal parts of the US, while that culture is not as strong in Australia. But in any case, there was once when someone actually drove by and shouted racist slurs at me in Melbourne, while such things have yet to happen to me in the US. Of course that is an isolated incident, and the vast majority of Australians I have met are racially tolerant, as are the vast majority of Americans I have met. Anyway, I will re-write the section and incorporate some of the points brought up here. Please feel free to edit so we can have something that relevant for travellers. The dog2 (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Good points, everyone. I'll look forward to seeing what you come up with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit unsure about "The U.S. constitution prohibits racial discrimination in range of public spheres such as employment, university admissions and receiving services from retail businesses." A federal constitution confers, defines or constrains powers or responsibilities allocated to various branches or levels of government - it doesn't govern individual retail businesses directly. w:Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States ruling that the "U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964." is not the same as the Constitution requiring directly that the motel act in some particular manner. The motel is a retail business, but is not a government and its role is therefore not defined by the federal constitution. K7L (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Go ahead and edit it if you feel that it is not accurate. But what I am pretty sure of is that it is illegal for shops and restaurants to refuse service to me based on my race, so there definitely is some legislation regarding that. The dog2 (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is, notably including the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But K7L, isn't your argument the one Barry Goldwater advanced in 1964, which was decisively rejected in that election? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
No. I said that the federal Constitution "doesn't govern individual retail businesses directly" but that, based on a Supreme Court ruling, the "U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
The w:Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, 1964#Changing dynamics took a very different position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as "Goldwater supported civil rights to varying degrees, but opposed this bill, reasoning that it undermined the sovereignty of the states to govern themselves."
The Constitution does give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, but the actual law requiring the innkeeper not discriminate is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and not the Constitution itself. K7L (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I think the current text of "Stay safe/Racism" is good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Bahamian travel advisory for the U.S.[edit]

I think it's important for us to post some excerpts of this with a link, but I anticipate that it may be controversial and would like to broach the topic here first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

exercise extreme caution .. in their interactions with the police. Do not be confrontational and cooperate. and Do not get involved in political or other demonstrations I think is good advice for most countries. Not to downplay this important topic that needs to be addressed but need to put it in proportion compared to number of people shot by non police in the USA and maybe mention the increase in deaths by cars in the US in the last couple of years. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Bahamians are mostly black, so it's important to understand the advisory in that context; as mentioned in the "Stay safe/Police" section: "It is particularly important for you to appear calm and cooperative if you are a non-white person, as people of color are much more likely to be subjected to police harassment and violence in the United States than white people." I am not aware of the increase in death by car that you refer to. Perhaps you'd like to tackle this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the current Stay Safe / Police section states the main points quite well (keep calm, no sudden movements, more so for non blacks). What I feel is missing are comments on the heavily segregated communities. I feel very safe as the only white person on the streets of a city in India or China but in some suburbs of Los Angeles and Detroit I have been very unconformable (although not as much as some areas of Paris or some English cities) and in one incident in a suburb of St. Louis I was physically threatened because I was the only non black on the street. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm really sorry that happened to you! However, I think we should be careful not to overgeneralize about things like that. I taught at Bronx Community College in the 90s when it was not in a gentrifying neighborhood at all but a black Hispanic ghetto, and while students of mine from the neighborhood said it could be rough at night, I never felt threatened as the only white guy on the train a lot of the time, nor while walking to and from the college or in the college (with the exception of one unbalanced student that I had to look out for, but he never did anything). In 1997, while I was teaching there, I took a trip to Chicago for a conference in the summertime. I planned to meet a friend in Oak Park and was asked how I was getting there. "I'll take the L, of course!", I said. Several white people recommended I not take the L, but when I pressed them on whether it was unsafe, none would say it was; all they said was that I'd probably be the only white person on the train and might feel uncomfortable. I was the only white person on the train, had a friendly conversation with other passengers and enjoyed the experience. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

"Yankee" and "n-word"[edit]

I just made this reversion.

My remark on the word "Yankee" in my edit summary:

As a New York Yankees fan, I disagree that there's anything necessarily derogatory about the term "Yankee", whether used to mean "American" abroad, "Northerner" in the South, or "New Englander" elsewhere.

And then I ran out of room, so I'm addressing "n-word" here.

My feeling about "n-word" is that I'd rather we not specify what that word is, but that this addresses things sufficiently:

If you have to reference race, Black or African-American, Asian, Latino or Hispanic, Native American or American Indian, and White or Caucasian are acceptable terms.

The likelihood is much greater that if you actually know what the euphemism "n-word" stands for, you know that that word is offensive and shouldn't be used unless perhaps you are African-American yourself — in which case, no-one needs to tell you anything. And otherwise, you've already been told what the acceptable terms are, so we aren't going to tell you what the offensive ones are.

Does anyone disagree? If so, how would you suggest phrasing these things? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. While the geographical variations in the meaning of "Yankee" were once accurate, I don't think anyone uses them that way locally anymore. And even if they did, the inappropriateness of using the word is highly dependent on context and tone. And I agree that anyone who knows what "the n-word" is would probably never use it. Powers (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is any reason for us to list any slurs, whether in their full length form or abbreviated. Either in this article or anywhere else. I am not an expert on the term Yankee, but I thought it is only ever really used as an insult in Latin America, the South and when referencing Baseball. On the other hand, I would not know of many uses of the term Yankee outside of anti-imperialist tirades of the likes of Chavez or Castro or Southerners discussing the Civil War. But I don't really follow Baseball. At any rate, I think the current discussion of terms for racial/ethnic groups is appropriate, there is a little use for us to list slurs here as there would be to list them in any other article. The only thing that might merit discussion is if there are terms that are commonly used in other countries but are offensive in the US. The only such term I would know of is "Colo(u)red" which some Germans seem to think is more appropriate than "black" and which has a specific meaning in South Africa but is a certain degree of offensive in the US if I am informed correctly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
"Colored" was the standard word for African-Americans 100 years ago, which is why the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is so named. The word, like "Negro" — which was still current in the 60s, as you can hear in speeches by Dr. King — is now totally outdated and except perhaps if spoken by a very old person, it would offend. But this seems like such an unusual thing to deal with, so I wouldn't include it in the article. "People of color" is used in the U.S. today, but that term refers to a much broader spectrum of non-whites, often all of them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree regarding both topics. There's no need to bring up the n-word, because if you know what word is meant, you should know that it's offensive. "Yankee" can be used as a slur, but can also be used neutrally or as a friendly jab; I don't see any reason it needs to be specifically mentioned. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that neither of these are worth mentioning. As a sidenote, if a word does need to be mentioned, we need to use the word. Saying "Don't use the 'n' word" would not be helpful and presumes everyone knows what that means which is not true at all. I'm not going to write it out here because the discussion is over and there is no purpose, but if that way of writing occurs in other articles, the word should be written out. It looks very childish to to say "the n word"/"c word"/"b" word,etc. We're adults, and if we want our guides to be understood, we must say what we mean. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, but I don't know if it's necessarily true that we're all adults. Powers (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Good point. We've had children contribute to this guide. But I totally agree with you, ChubbyWimbus. If it's necessary to say what words not to use, they need to be specified. It's just that in this case, the words _to_ use have been specified, so I think there's no need to mention any of the numerous offensive ones. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Garage sales and flea markets?[edit]

Is it time to split out shopping in the United States? The "buy" section seems to be becoming a "kitchen sink" into which to toss everything from incompatible electrical systems and mobile telephones to estate sales, thrift shops, garage sales. Isn't this page intended to be a very general overview of an entire country from the perspective of the voyager, with the detail pushed to pages further down the hierarchy? K7L (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

There is perhaps a bit too much detail here, but I don't see anything that is regionally specific; it pretty much all applies nation-wide. Powers (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Warning box[edit]

Travel Warning WARNING: Turkish Foreign Affairs Ministry advises caution while visiting some regions of the USA, in view of protests following the election of Donald Trump, which have taken place in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami, Los Angeles, Seattle, Oakland and Portland. They have noted incidents of violence, crime, arrests, and an "increase in verbal and physical attacks and harassment incidents which are anti-foreign and racist", and counsel their citizens to avoid demonstrations, increase security measures and closely monitor the news. (Advisory here in Turkish)

I really feel we should have a consensus first, before we slap big red warning boxes on high profile articles when the need is surely up for discussion. I get that the situation in the US is tense right now, and it's only to be expected that non-western governments (especially the ones with a complex relationship with e.g. the US) will be the first to issue warnings, but a Turkish warning to avoid demonstrations and follow the news when travelling to the US is, imho, reason for a mention in the Stay safe section rather than a warning box on top of the article, just like we do for other countries where there is an advise to be extra vigilant due to current political or other developments. Also keep in mind that in this particular case the original poster has an agenda and is trying to make a point; see Talk:Chechnya. Let's hear some opinions before reinstating any of those sudden and debatable boxes. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this should be a cautionbox in "Stay safe", but I think it's pretty reasonable and belongs in the article. Trump campaigned as an out-and-out, repeatedly ranting racist, religious bigot and misogynist, and has been rewarded by almost half the voting public in the U.S., across many states, with a victory. That, combined with current and potential problems relating to the angry opposition to his victory, which was attained with a minority of the popular vote amid some successful attempts to block some eligible voters (notably including some elderly black voters in states like North Carolina) from being able to vote, can easily be predicted to worsen things, and the reports I've read suggest that things have already gotten worse, especially among children, who are following Trump and his adult supporters by beating up fellow students who are Hispanics, disabled people, etc., citing his promises to deport Mexicans, build a wall, etc. Muslims have had problems in the U.S. ever since 2001, and these will obviously get worse, now that a candidate who promised at certain points in his campaign to bar all Muslims from entry has been elected. If I were a Turk, I would definitely think twice about traveling here now, and I certainly would think three times about spending time living here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, a mention in the stay safe section seems fair. Unfortunately, rather than join the discussion here, on Talk:Chechnya or on his talkpage, this user is choosing to start an edit war over red warning boxes on top of a list of US articles, India and United Kingdom. I've explained to him that he really should engage in the discussion, but his mind seems set. I don't want to seem too prejudiced, so I'm hoping others will join in before undoing all the warning boxes a second time. Also pinging User:K7L and User: Ypsilon, who have been involved before. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The red {{warningbox}} is for non-obvious dangers to life and limb. Aleppo is under siege, Mosul is a war zone, that sort of stuff. I've already placed a {{cautionbox}} about the currency situation in India#Buy - this is causing problems for the voyager but not directly endangering lives. We'd also routinely mention things like the recent New Zealand quake if they affect travel.
I've been making changes to article body text where the situation has been deteriorating because of the election... Americans in Cuba has an infobox stating that US-Cuba relations are a moving target and I've had to reword that to indicate they're about to take a turn for the worse. No, I did not cite Turkey as a source, w:WP:RS style. There are other, more trustworthy sources about the current situation - if only because it's a bad time to be a journalist in Turkey right now for reasons which have little to do with the US election result.
If something affects travel directly (and not in some brief, transitory manner like "a turnip truck overturned in the right lane of Route 66 is blocking traffic...") then mention it inline. At this point, the big red box is overkill. K7L (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, though, is there anything in that travel advisory that doesn't seem totally reasonable to you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not unreasonable, but wouldn't you say it's rather obvious advice considering the generally known situation? There's nothing very specific in that particular Turkish advice. That doesn't make it invalid in any way, but K7L makes a valid point in saying that -unfortunately- Turkish press and governmental statements are not among the most trustworthy at the moment, and probably not the best place to find up to date information on the situation, which would be a good reason to include the link. I think the main thing (in all these cases) is just to get the core of the threat and advice across, so travellers can make informed decisions. I do feel that in general, unless there is specific information that is hard to link otherwise, we should try to focus on English language sources where we can. Google translate works somewhat okay for French and maybe Turkish, but not so great for e.g. Arabic. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Is your main point that we should generally link only to English-language governmental warnings? That makes some sense, but it's also problematic in that many readers, though reading this English-language source, may be from countries whose governments don't put out English-language warnings, and we shouldn't assume that their specific security concerns will be dealt with in the travel advisories of governments that use English as an official language. I do see the exception guideline you're offering, though: "unless there is specific information that is hard to link otherwise". Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, my point was that we should only include non-English links when they have some kind of added value, like information not available in English. I also don't think it's a great idea to start linking every English language advice available[1], when they all say the same thing. We're not trying to give readers links to their specific governments, but just to a few relevant, readable statements - as an encouragement to find updated info themselves. The warning boxes should be as compact as possible. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. So in this case, do we link any source, and if so, which one? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Considering that the situation is still quite volatile and covered daily in all kinds of media across the world, I think we can do very well without any specific link. But that's just me :) JuliasTravels (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on the complexity of the situation; something like the India#Buy 500/1000-rupee currency demonetisation might need a link to more detail than we can fit into a brief {{cautionbox}}, as might the longstanding war on Da'esh, but does "widely-reported civil protests in the wake of the 2016 election" get the idea across just as easily without the mention that "the nation's own state radio" has extensive coverage or the mention that a foreign régime said something? Choosing Turkey seems odd as there are plenty of available sources closer to the situation which appear reliable; the "a seemingly-peaceful protest often can rapidly turn ugly" advice is so common on government external affairs sites as to be venturing into WV:NCO territory. There's also the not-so-minor detail that the voyager is still at far greater risk of being killed by common criminals than by election protesters at the moment. K7L (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
So, should we turn discussing warning box to the caution box in "Stay safe" part, as it has done for India  ? Ismail Khatai (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC+3)
I have read through the discussion, and frankly it doesn't seem sensible to advise against travel to the USA just because of a Trump victory. The UK is not advising this. Appreciate these are unusual times with a high degree of uncertainty, some volatility, but we haven't reached the threshold of 'dangerous' yet. I would travel tomorrow. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The Turkish Foreign Ministry isn't advising against travel to the U.S., either, but it does give some advice about ways for its citizens to increase their safety while they're here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Please see proposed formulation of caution box:
Caution NOTE: Turkish Foreign Affairs Ministry advises to avoid demonstrations, increase security measures and closely monitor the news while visiting some regions of the USA, in view of protests, which have taken place in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami, Los Angeles, Seattle, Oakland and Portland. They have noted incidents of violence, crime, arrests, and an "increase in verbal and physical attacks and harassment incidents which are anti-foreign and racist". (Advisory here in Turkish)

Ismail Khatai (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC+3)

I think the text I used for what was a warningbox is clearer in explaining what the protests are in relation to. I can't insist on using the Turkish Foreign Ministry as a source if a majority here doesn't want to, but I think the gist of the content should appear in "Stay safe", because it's really accurate to say that things are tense now, and the U.S. - and especially religious and ethnic/racial minorities, transgendered people, disabled people and women - face(s) an uncertain future under a Trump Administration and Republican control over both Houses of Congress and very soon, the Supreme Court. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I will put banner on stay safe block, then ( in the way as it is described in warning box ). But the way it is worded looks slightly exaggerated, as it is in real ( as i feel ). Suggest to use more soft wording. This is very ticklish issue. Ismail Khatai (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC+3)
There's no consensus here for a banner. I wasn't suggesting you plunge forward without waiting for a consensus. I predict that the cautionbox will be reverted by someone soon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't even think we need a banner (but I have no strong feelings about it), and a link to the Turkish website seems unnecessary and in this particular case even biased. It has been said by others before; we start with inline text usually, unless there is something new, for which travellers are specifically vulnerable and of which travellers might not be aware (like the India money thing). The list of cities is also somewhat random, as there have been demonstrations in all kinds of places and for both sides; most of which were not violent. Yes, there has been an increase in reports of hate crimes and racism, in both direction). That is terrible and deserves mentioning. However, it's not like there never were any hate crimes or unrests before, and we've handled the increased police violence and accompanying protests last years with restraint too. For comparison; the UK saw a 40% rise in racial and religious abuse after the recent referendum, but that spike was gone after a few months. I get that people are frustrated and scared over the current situation in the US; I sure would be. But as a travel guide, we can't get ahead of the facts and warn for what might become a problem. Let's go about this as we would with any other country, monitor the situation and adapt the text as we go along. Obviously, things will change if the violence becomes more concrete or widespread. Compare it to the Turkey article. All western governments have been warning to exercise caution and avoid political demonstrations in Turkey for a long time. The same is true for dozens of other countries in the world. We don't use caution boxes to warn Jewish travellers from Muslim attacks in Parisian suburbs (which is also a real problem); but we do include an inline warning. So let's propose a wording for the USA, please go ahead an improve. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The outcome of the recent Presidential elections have left the United States politically divided, and demonstrations are taking place in many major cities. In some cases, these demonstrations have turned violent. News media have also reported an increase in attacks and harassments (both verbal and physical) based on race, religion or sexual orientation over the past year and especially since the election. The situation remains volatile and travellers are advised to stay away from demonstrations, be vigilant and consult up to date information before and during their trip."
The Turkey warnings appear to be politically motivated, as a response to US warnings with which Erdogan disagrees. [2]. I'd hesitate to say "stay away from demonstrations" as this would also discourage legitimate, peaceful protest which the 1st Amendment should be protecting. Everything after that is WV:NCO. Governments are infamous for giving this sort of advice, but it's not very helpful.
"The 2016 Presidential election outcome has left the United States deeply divided politically, with widespread demonstrations in many major cities. While most protests are peaceful, a few have turned violent. Media have reported incidents of harassment (both verbal and physical) and attacks based on race, religion or sexual orientation."
Hopefully that avoids mentioning "nasty woman", "basket of deplorables" or any of the other charming epithets directly? K7L (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Some prose to the effect of what K7L suggests in the "Stay safe" section seems fine. The warning box template explicitly states that it is for "non-obvious dangers to life and limb" and that it should be used sparingly, and I think most people would agree that "avoid political protests" is obvious, and that the dangers to minorities, while clearly escalated at the current time, do not rise to the level of "non-obvious dangers to life and limb" in a country where racially motivated violence has existed since its founding. A cautionbox also seems overblown to me, but I tend to generally be wary of adding warnings to articles based mainly on the current week's news coverage, so I'll defer to others on whether prose or a cautionbox is best. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually I find the warning downright confusing. On one hand you are warning against potential violence in demonstrations (from those who are not happy with the election) and on the other you are warning against hate crime, incidents of which are generally instigated by those favorable to the election outcome. Without any context I would assume that you are suggesting I would be subject to attacks on my race/religious beliefs/sexual orientation during these demonstrations.
Apart from a running commentary on the current situation, I still don't really get what advise we are trying to communicate to the traveler with this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I daresay, the most likely danger of violence in demonstrations would be from the police, or possibly from pro-Trump individuals or groups, not from demonstrators opposed to bigotry and racism. I think the word is basically that this is an increased period of tension, and that particularly if you are recognizably non-white or non-Christian, you should be alert to this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
American SJWs that are protesting "racism" and "bigotry" are a rather violent and intolerant bunch (and also rather racist and bigoted if you spend any amount of time listening to them); much moreso than a "Trump voter" which is not a cohesive group with a single motive despite attempts to mark them as such. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Not to worry, I'm sure that pesky First Amendment will go away soon enough (most likely under a flurry of abusive litigation) as soon as people like Donald Trump and Peter Thiel are anywhere near the levers of power. Speak truth to power in their dystopic nation, get sued. K7L (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The SJWs are already against the First Amendment, so if you're right, he would be appeasing the Regressive liberals. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I really do not think throwing around loaded terms (particularly those usually employed by people of a certain political bent) like "SJW" or "regressive" is all that helpful. For the most part we have managed to keep politics out of WV and I hope we can keep it that way. Way too many wikis have gone down in flames over silly political disputes. That being said if and when politics have consequences for travel, we should mention that and only that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I also don't think it's helpful to invoke fear-mongering with talk of First Amendment dissipation. And the idea that the protestors are riteous and non-violent has been proven false. A political narrative was being pushed there, which is why I responded and why I responded with the words used by those who oppose them. We need to focus on the present and edit later if there is a prolonged trend or the media claims about concentration camps becomes reality. I think what is written currently is close to as much as we can fairly say. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your last sentence and will choose to ignore the rest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Racism section[edit]

Would it be prudent to add a comment under the "racism" subheading that racist incidents have increased in past weeks as a result of the poitical situation? Dmartin969 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks a bit odd to mention the 1960s civil rights movement and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then act as if nothing had happened at all (good or bad) between then and the painfully divisive 2016 presidential race. That's a huge gap in which a lot has happened - the anti-Muslim backlash after the 11 Sept 2001 attacks, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the election of a black President in 2008, the Ferguson MO racial disturbances in 2014 and the whole "driving while black" phenomenon and bizarre "asset forfeiture" laws by which police assume anyone carrying large amounts of cash obtained it by crime, making it fair game for police departments to pocket for themselves. 2016 is a setback, but it's just one milestone of many. We should try not to emphasise the current week's news headlines at the expense of all else as race relations stateside are an awkward topic with a long and complex history. K7L (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Good points. Perhaps all of that should be mentioned? The risk is to make the article too long and encyclopedic, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The risk is that this overlap other existing sections, like #History or #Police. The current "#Racism" text even overlaps and repeats itself, claiming that "it is in general rare to face open aggression" and then repeating this to claim that "incidents are rarely physical in nature":
The constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech, meaning that making racist comments in and of itself is not illegal, and racist remarks can sometimes be heard at high profile political rallies. That being said, most Americans are, at least publicly, tolerant of other races, and it is in general rare to face open aggression from random people as a result of one's race. Compared to many European and Asian countries, the U.S. is, at least publicly, a racially tolerant country. The U.S. constitution, as well as landmark legislation such as the civil rights acts of the 1960's prohibit racial discrimination in a range of public spheres such as employment, university admissions and receiving services from retail businesses. AS a result of recent changes in the political climate there has been an increase in racist incidents, particularly those targeted at people of Middle Eastern and Latino descent. The incidents are rarely physical in nature.
I'm not sure how to reword this. The 2016 election fits poorly with the rest.
The "police" section of the article should be expanded to mention this sort of thing (a point raised more than a year ago at #Recent cases of police violence / abuse) but fixing the "racism" section could be awkward as there have been many discussions on this page and still no easy answer. K7L (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I changed it to "tensions", because it is mostly tension rather than "incidents" which is confusing since we also say they're non-violent. I'm not sure about the police thing. Why exactly does the traveler need to know about the police confiscating the belongings of citizens? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Um, that should be obvious... tourists carry money. If people carrying substantial amounts of cash are at risk of being robbed both by criminals and (on some Trumped-up excuse that the cash must be drug money) by police, that's something the voyager would want to know. If there's any racial profiling (ie: persons of colour more likely to be stopped by police in certain areas) that only aggravates the problem - as the traveller is alien - but any non-obvious danger to voyagers carrying cash during their travels needs to be disclosed. K7L (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The article you cited talked about citizens not foreign nationals. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Foreign nationals would be just as much at risk as anyone else. K7L (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that's obvious, and forfeiture should be mentioned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I would just caution that as a travel guide we don't have to mention every single aspect of racism and police conduct in the United States. Forfeiture does unfairly target lower income ethnic minorities as well as immigrants, but is it really something that the vast majority of travelers are going to notice? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The non-obvious dangers are normally the ones we warn about... this qualifies. K7L (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Forfeiture could affect any driver, so even though members of minority groups are disproportionately arrested and prosecuted for drug crimes, and therefore also subject to arbitrary forfeiture for merely being charged, even without basis, and eventually acquitted, coverage of forfeiture belongs in the "Police" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
There are an awful lot of potential 'non obvious dangers' in any country, and I thought we should highlight the ones that are likely to impact a traveler. I'll leave it to your better judgement whether this genuinely should be of particular concern for travelers to the US Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Some figures might be helpful, but do you think being struck with the rotan in Malaysia and Singapore is more common than forfeiture in the U.S.? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Good question. Rotan in Malaysia is widely used for immigration offenses which does impact travelers, albeit those from poorer countries in the region. An American (for example) is unlikely to get caned, although it has happened on rare occasions. The question is just whether if I travel (for example) from France to the USA with $6,000 in my backpack, how likely is it going to be that a police officer will search and confiscate it. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Not that likely, I would say, but it could happen to you randomly, whereas I believe you are unlikely to be caned without actually committing an offense. I had forgotten that Malaysia instituted rotan strikes for undocumented or overstaying workers, but I think the point is made. I wouldn't go on and on about forfeiture, but it's worth spending a sentence or so on it. And having thousands of dollars in cash on your person is dangerous, anyway, in terms of theft or loss. But the forfeiture of a car is a really serious matter, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Confederate symbols[edit]

Re this edit by User:Hobbitschuster: I agree it's fair, but I'm not sure why it's something a traveler needs to know. Foreign travelers to the U.S. aren't likely to have opportunity to display confederate flags. Powers (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

For whatever reason, Confederate flags sometimes appear in the context of European soccer without any indication that those displaying them have any particular opinion on that whole 1861-1865. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Washington post has an article on this phenomenon. According to the article the confederate flag is used in Europe for reasons as diverse as a simple token of 'rebellion' against the larger nation state (i.e. Naples against Italy) to a proxy and fig-leaf justification for racist views. I'm not convinced that it is that widespread, but definitely exists. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I think many people from outside the US may be aware that this symbol exists (though even inside the US few people know that the Confederacy used several national flags, but never that precise one), but not aware of all its connotations. Especially given that older movies that glorify the symbol may still be prevalent in some countries (in Nicaragua for instance Walker Texas Ranger is still on TV regularly - not that I would know of any association between that series and the Confederate flag) Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I grew up in the UK watching the 'Dukes of Hazard' , so the flag was familiar to me. Only much later the real meaning of it, and yes probably advisable not to carry such a flag around.
That said, one criticism I have of this article is that it is getting less of a travel guide and more of a collection of facts about the country. The flag issue is technically a fact, but is it a relevant one? Is an Italian football fan busy packing his collection of confederate flags for his US holiday going to read the section and say "Thank you Wikivoyage!! I had no idea!!"? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, certainly, our coverage on the United States (particularly this very article) has to fight with the problem you describe a lot and we have to strike some balance. Are there other parts of this article where you fear we have made this mistake? And how about having a more in-depth discussion on this issue in the article on the South in particular? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I try not to involve to much in United States, if only to avoid the 'too many cooks' scenario (also I haven't actually been there for a few years). Specific areas to cut down on would be holidays, which is mixed with important national holidays and less travel relevant cultural ones. Immigration into the US is insanely long a detailed, and could probably benefit from having a dedicated travel article to itself. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure all of the holidays listed are relevant to travelers for one reason or another, although some of them may depend on a traveler visiting an area where a particular culture predominates. Powers (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
In such cases, that could be an argument for mentioning those holidays in region articles and not necessarily this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The Confederate flag seems irrelevant. It has no meaning to the traveler. Even within the US, the meaning gets blurred, but more importantly, regardless of the flyers intent, what exactly can we say about a person with a Confederate flag? Nothing. What reason are we even talking about it? As everyone pointed out, it's not even about Americans with the flag; it's about travelers displaying it. I could see it being given mention in the American South regional article (maybe not in the same way), but I don't see any value in it here. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Too much detail?[edit]

In my view there is too much detail in this article which really reduces its usefulness as a travel guide greatly. This edit on respect is frankly overkill. Also "Generally, Americans prefer a firm handshake, which is perceived as being confident" - are there cultures who prefer limp or overly strong handshakes? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

If you check the talk page archives for this article you'll see that trimming the article, particularly the Respect section, has been a cyclical effort - it fills up with mundane detail, it gets trimmed back down to the basics, and the cycle repeats. If it's time for another trimming then please plunge forward and pull out any obvious bits. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, I completely forgot that I had raised this in 2015. I'm happy to try some trimming, and hopefully no-one feels too protective of this particular article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Trim away. My only rationale for trying to bulk out the Respect section is that, as an American myself, I'm trying to not be imperialist and assume that the whole world is automatically familiar with American cultural norms. But here on the Internet, maybe it really is unnecessary.
And yes, other cultures do have varying preferences on how firm/weak a handshake should be. Just read w:Handshake. --Bigpeteb (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
While that is true, I would say that Americans will not be offended when a foreigner gives them a slightly weaker or stronger handshake than average. In most country articles, we need to find a balance between including the information that is necessary and avoiding an article that is off-putting because of sheer size of fact-heavyness. With that in mind, I'm also inclined to delete such details, in this case. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Probably not offended, but a limp handshake is definitely a bad way to start a business meeting, especially if you are a man shaking a man's hand. I don't think it's crucial to mention, but if we want to serve the business-traveling community, we could consider whether to keep it in the article or delete it to save space. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Lengthy articles exist on rules of conduct when involved in business meetings in the US (and many other large economies). From my own experience, I would say that the handshake thing is one of the smallest cultural differences most foreigners will face when conducting business in the US, and of little consequence to other travellers. Considering also the wide variety of backgrounds (and accompanying rules of conduct in home countries) of business travellers reading our article, I don't think we should try to include such facts unless they are also of real value to a wider range of travellers. That's just my general feeling though; I have no strong objections to including specific details if others want to. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
There is some social science around international handshakes, but fairly nuanced and to the point above there are very few cultures (if any) which engage in limp handshakes as a matter of course. Working for international consultancies there is a whole list proper business etiquette that would easily fill an article such as Business travel in the United States. Another point is that business travel varies greatly between American cities (visiting an office in Seattle and Texas do have different requirements) Andrewssi2 (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
A Business travel in the United States could be a good idea if there are people who are experienced with it and want to tackle that. My "business travel" has mostly been limited to the times when I used to audition for orchestras, so it was at a much lower level of luxury than that of business executives on expense accounts. But if that article is started, the remarks about handshakes should be moved there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Should it be specific to the United States, or perhaps just Business travel with a sub-section for the US? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Given that business travel already exists and is not subdivided by country or region, maybe we would like to have articles like business travel in Europe, business travel in Arab countries and so on. I think if we can say something about Japan and/or China (whose culture, including business culture is very different from the West) we should also make an article on that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

So Business Travel in North America ? (assuming Mexico is not too different to US and Canada?) Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
On the question above: I don't have a strong opinion about whether Business travel should simply be subdivided into separate sections, but I would simply observe that that article feels to me like it's more or less long enough already as an overview, so it may be more user-friendly to create separate regional articles that include advice more or less specific to those regions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that would be wise just now. Frankly, when you actually read more closely, that article needs a proper cleanup, since it's packed with obvious and non-tavel specific information. I really fail to see the use of that whole (long) understand section listing professions that may or may not require travel. If someone who has to travel for work decides to search for information here, I don't see how they'd benefit from a very obvious list of others who might also have to travel for work (or not, completely depending on their actual jobs). The list of options to get around is equally obvious and also completely depends on the destination and on your company's travel policies. There's a distinct lack of actually useful information like rules of conduct, things to check in your company's travel policy and how to find good information for different destinations. I'd suggest, if anyone really wants to dive into this, to first trim the existing article and then include the information we were talking about. If it ever becomes so bulky that a division is needed, we should do it then rather than start several outline articles again. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I would trust your judgment on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect map locations[edit]

I just took a look at the 'Map of the United States' image and I noticed that San Antonio was placed further north close to Austin. As someone who loves geography and locating different cities, I am quite confident that the editor who made this map placed San Antonio in the wrong spot. This is very misleading to tourists who look at this map and assume San Antonio is closer in distance to Austin. De88 (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the earliest recorded version of the map ( ), you'll see that Austin was originally placed in the correct location, where San Antonio is now. User:Peterfitzgerald was told in 2009 that I-10 was incorrectly routed through Austin (it actually goes through San Antonio, which wasn't on the map). So Peter attempted to fix it, moving Austin from its correct location and replacing it with San Antonio, instead of moving I-10 to its proper location and simply adding San Antonio. The fix will be somewhat involved, but I'll see what I can do. Powers (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
(Just for the record, found some earlier versions of the map at -- you'll see that the map didn't originally include highways, but when User:Cacahuate added them I-10 was routed through Austin accidentally.) Powers (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I have repaired the map and made a few other tweaks. Powers (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

public forums[edit]

I know that "forums" is correct English, but it just sounds awful to me. Is there something else we might write there instead? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"Public places" would be fine, I think. However, your other option is to tolerate this expression, which is standard and rather an idiom in the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
"Places" is awkward idiomatically when we're talking about civic discussion. "Forum" is explicitly the word for places -- even virtual places -- where discourse occurs. Powers (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster Is it perhaps that although the German word is exactly the same : 'Das Forum', it sounds a bit old and stuffy? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it is because I had latin in school or because German really knows no regular plural the way English and Spanish do, but "forums" just sounds wrong. There is nothing wrong with the word "forum", but this plural just looks not right to me. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually the previous wording 'fora' was technically correct for latin experts, but 'forums' is pretty much the accepted plural in everyday English. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Executive Order[edit]

I added the following caution box to 'Get In' :

Caution NOTE: On January 25th 2017, the President signed an executive order preventing the visa processing for the next 30 days of citizens from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia. This order is likely to be extended to prevent these nationalities acquiring U.S. visas in all but exceptional circumstances.

Politics aside, and regardless of how you feel about the person who made this order, please feel free to update with factually correct information. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The situation is very fluid, and may be dependent on court orders, executive action, and a wide variety of other factors. I suspect it will be difficult to keep this updated. Edge3 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Experience shows that we have a rather good track record of keeping stuff updated as long as it is in the news. Once the situation dies down, we are not necessarily as good at those updates. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
This destination is edited frequently enough that I can't see this being an issue. It's the out-of-the-way places that are hard to keep up to date, for instance: "NOTE: Vanuatu sustained extensive damage due to Cyclone Pam on March 14, 2015. While the island of Espiritu Santo was unscathed and most Port Vila venues have reopened, destruction on many outer islands was severe and reconstruction efforts continue. (Jan 2016)". Do we know if they've rebuilt? K7L (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
True, but the Schengen Template still alludes to the Paris attacks for instance. Though this danger is probably lower here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
It's important enough to mention, even though it's in flux. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest keeping it simple, given that official advice is confusing and even conflicting. Also a daily commentary isn't actually required. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. And I would also say, let's not get into the politics. Let's just state what the current situation is, no more, no less. The main problem is that there are many conflicting reports about green card holders, with some saying that they are not affecting, others saying that the ban affects them too, and some also saying that green card holders must report to a US consulate to be vetted further and may be let in on a case by case basis. The dog2 (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
There are also badly conflicting reports about the status of UK dual citizens and Canadian residents - it looks like the US government is trying to downplay this to the UK Foreign Office and the Canadian immigration minister, among others. I'd state the current situation if I knew what it was. K7L (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that the current situation is that people who had legal status to enter or live in the U.S. but had been detained pursuant to Trump's executive order have been released in full from some airports and not from others. The main advice for travelers with any kind of citizenship in the 7 countries mentioned in the executive order should be to postpone travel for now, or if they already have tickets, to make alternate plans in case they are barred from embarking on a plane to the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
"White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday that 'moving forward', the ban 'doesn't affect' green card holders, but he would not clarify." and "After an outcry, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly issued a blanket waiver later on Sunday, allowing green card holders to enter the United States."[3]
Dual citizenship is also a confused mess... UK, maybe, Canada, maybe, Australia maybe not? For that matter, what happens to people who have a "Tehran" birthplace listed in a Western passport they acquired before renouncing Iranian citizenship? Are they still the enemy, much like Ted Cruz is still under a cloud of suspicion of being Calgarian despite his best efforts to renounce and betray Canada, or are they simply citizens of their new country?
I'd update the warningbox, but I don't know what I'm doing... and neither does Herr Drumpf. Too bad. The flip-flop on green cards needs to be addressed, as it directly affects travel. K7L (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
At this point in time we should advise green card holders not to leave the U.S. It may take a few weeks for unambiguous and consistent rules to be announced. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
That seems to be the standard advice from universities and corporations to their students and employees at the moment. It's worth mentioning, though I don't know how many permanent residents are reading a travel guide to their own country. Powers (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
And they also have the same advice from people on work or student visas. As of now, if you are from one of those countries, you won't be deported if you're already here legally, but you cannot come back once you leave. The dog2 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the Visa Waiver section as it stands now - particularly the box at the top - is not accurate any more. It now seems to indicate that mere presence in or travel to Iran or Somalia makes the person in question ineligible not just for Visa Waiver but for applying for a regular visa as well. I am not sure that is correct. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes - an Australian (for example) wanting to travel to the U.S. having previously visited Iran would no longer be eligible for the visa waiver, but would still be able to apply a regular visa, possibly with additional scrutiny. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Another (related?) issue[edit]

In our Iran coverage there is a throwaway line on Visa Waiver being denied to anybody who has been to Iran, regardless of citizenship, though it is apparently possible to get a "regular" visa (which is a pain in the lower backside even for people who'd qualify for Visa Waiver otherwise). Is Iran the only such country? And which countries are on the list? Has that list changed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

non-Americans who have previously traveled to Iran (and some other countries) are not eligible for the visa-waiver program. They can however apply for a 'regular visa' with the usual documentation and potential interview process that is involved. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I know. What I don't know (and what should be mentioned in this article) is what "and some other countries" means? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
So according to this website, the following restrictions are in place as of this writing:

"Under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, travelers in the following categories are no longer eligible to travel or be admitted to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP):

  • Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or military purposes in the service of a VWP country).
  • Nationals of VWP countries who are also nationals of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria." Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


I suppose it was inevitable that someone would add information about Trump to the article, but I believe it's misplaced. While current events are always notable, it is impossible to accurately judge the weight to give them in the context of the nation's history. Until we have something actually historic to say about Trump's presidency, I don't think a paragraph about how controversial he is is warranted or desirable. Powers (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It has to be said that the specific changes to immigration rules has had a significant impact over the past week, and it merits some context. Agreed that Trump shouldn't be discussed in historical terms at this point in time. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
However tempting it is to add a "trust Donald Trump as far as you can throw him" as a fair comment, it likely would violate Wikivoyage:No advice from Captain Obvious. The "Muslim ban" and "wall around Mexico" campaign platforms are worth a mention as they affect travel from those countries, but describing his antics in vague terms as "controversial" and likely to provoke "condemnation from more liberal sectors of the population" is merely stating the obvious. K7L (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Take it out if you feel it's inappropriate, but I just added it in since many of the things he's been doing are unprecedented to say the least, the executive order on immigration being one such example, as well as how he's taken to Twitter to criticise foreign leaders. But on my part, since we will inevitably have both Trump opponents and supporters who use Wikivoyage, I've tried to write it in as neutral a tone as possible so we don't start preaching our personal points of view to other travellers. Of course, I understand that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is still considered to be disaster by white supremacists, neo-Nazis and so on, and it's impossible to be completely neutral. But regardless, my take is that if we agree to keep the statement, we should avoid taking sides on this political divide, and should try to simply state the facts and leave the reader to decide which political stance he/she wishes to take. The dog2 (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Unprecedented or "unpresidented"? K7L (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I can just hope for all our sake that Trump ends up being less remarkable than Chester A Arthur or Grover Cleveland. But I fear he might be one of those we remember, for better or worse. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The advantages to travellers has not be stated. Having been on a plane this week to USA, on a flight usually full of middle east travellers, there was plenty of space to stretch out. --Traveler100 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Humor aside, I think my original statement stands. In the history section, there's no neutral way to include Trump without resorting to either meaningless/obvious platitudes about "controversy" or descriptions of current events as they happen (neither of which help the traveler). If events occur that require a traveler's attention, we can and should put them in other sections. They'll be historical later. Powers (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you proposing to ignore Trump completely until he leaves office? That's like ignoring the elephant in the room - "What elephant?" Just as Duterte is covered in the article about the Philippines, Trump has to be covered as a current unpredictable source of instability. That affects travelers, as we've already seen in a big way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
What value is added by having commentary on That Awful Man/The Great Leader? Anyone on the planet with the resources to travel to the US -- and 94% of those who don't -- are aware of what he is doing and probably have an opinion about it. Our readers won't learn anything new, but we'll end up spending a lot of energy trying to get the wording "just right" and fending off soapboxing by opponents and supporters. Let's stick to what a travel guide does best: provide information about the entry and visa requirements and changes that have been announced to them. Ground Zero (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
What is relevant to wikivoyage is the degree of unpredictability that travel to the US now entails as a direct result of this presidency. When a former Nowegian Prime Minister is detained for having visited Iran a few years earlier then it has to be said objectively that the Trump administration is causing uncertainty for travelers. Obviously we don't need to discuss our personal feelings about this, just state this cause and impact. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The reason why I added the part on Trump is partly because there is a mention of Duterte in the Philippines article, and of Brexit in the UK article. I agree that the current state of affairs make it very unpredictable on when visa rules can change, and that is of concern to a traveller. And for a foreigner living in the US like me, there is that uncertainty on when Trump can just bar me from entering the country with the stroke of a pen if I should need to leave the country for whatever reason, so many institutions are telling their foreign students or employees to avoid leaving the US for now. A good thing for me is that Singapore is not on the list, but all it takes is a stroke of the pen from Trump and Singapore may well be the next country to be banned. It may or may not happen, but what is an objective fact is the uncertainty that Trump's actions have caused, especially given that since assuming office he has indeed broken many long-standing diplomatic and political conventions that previous presidents, both Democratic and Republican have largely followed. But as I said, we must be careful to avoid preaching one political stance over the other. I have my own feelings and opinions on the issue, as does everyone here, but for as long as I have known, Wikivoyage does not take sides on a political dispute. Especially given how polarising this issue is, I'd say let's keep the tone neutral, and stick merely to the facts that affect travellers. The dog2 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
So as an extension of my previous posts, I think it is OK to mention the executive order against the 7 Muslim majority countries as something that is controversial and could potentially inconvenience travellers, but we should be careful to avoid preaching about whether or not the travel ban is appropriate. Let the facts speak for themselves, and leave readers to form their own opinions on the issue. The dog2 (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

We have notices about the visa restrictions in the "Get in" section, so we don't need to address the issue in the history section. I think needs should cut down the full paragraph that covers the history of the last two months to one line: replace

Widespread public anger over the perceived loss of jobs to China and Mexico led to the election of the populist, but controversial, Donald Trump as president in 2016, leading to widespread protests in liberal-leaning major cities across the US, not least because his opponent, Hillary Clinton, actually received almost three million more votes nationwide. Since assuming office, Trump has proceeded to implement many of his most controversial policies, breaking with many well established political and diplomatic conventions in the process, thus cementing his popularity among his core support base of white working class voters, but leading to widespread protests and condemnation from more liberal sectors of the population.


Donald Trump took office as president of the U.S. in January 2017, and began implementing policies that are markedly different from those of his predecessor, Barack Obama. These include changes that may affect entry into the country for some people -- see the notices in the "Get in" section below.

Ground Zero (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Too vague. "Markedly different" how exactly, and with what impact on travel?
In 2016, Donald Trump ran for office on a divisive platform which proposed a multi-billion-dollar Mexico border wall and a ban on Muslim travel to the US. His protectionist stance against Mexican and Chinese manufacturers drew populist support in the struggling rust belt. While the long-term impact on travel is unclear, particularly with respect to China and Cuba, a Jan 2017 executive order barring travel from seven predominately-Muslim countries has caused widespread disruption. The issue is currently before the courts -- see the notices in the "Get in" section below.
or, more succinctly:
{{warningbox|Voyagers are advised to avoid all non-essential travel in the wake of the Bowling Green Massacre. (2/2017)}} K7L (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I think something like the first example would be fine, but I'd also say it's tempting to jump to somewhat exaggerated conclusions about what Trump's impact - to travellers, to American citizens, to citizens of other countries - will be in the end, and let's resist that temptation when formulating these warnings. If I were a betting man, I'd say posterity will likely prove the American left's worst fears about the fate of their country in Trump's hands to be at least partly unfounded. If the rollout of the immigration ban is an accurate bellwether, I think there's a pretty wide gulf between what Trump would like to do and what he is actually capable of (or will be allowed to get away with - even by his own party, which, let's not forget, doesn't trust him either). I think a good rule of thumb to follow is Trump's words matter, but the follow-through (or lack thereof) matters far more. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikivoyage doesn't need to educate people about Trump - that's not our role. Phraselike ",divisive platform" are just going to lead to ongoing squabbles about the correct wording (e.g., did 1.5 million people really die at Bowling Green?) The less said the better. The Mexico wall is not an issue for WV readers - were not here to provide advice to illegal migrants or refugees. Maybe there should be a separate "Wikirefugee" or "Wikimigration". Ground Zero (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Given that the wall won't stop the vast majority of illegal migration (perfectly legal migrants who just overstay their visa or do stuff not allowed under the terms of their visa, whether by accident or on purpose), there may be tougher "enforcement" components to the wall as well. Also, the "Mexico is paying for it" bit may cause some reciprocity fees to rise for US citizens who travel to other places. But those things need only be covered once they arise. On another note, we are not exactly politically neutral (which is a ludicrous proposition in that case anyway) when it comes to classifying North Korea and the likes as dictatorships. Those countries themselves would insist they are shiny happy people's democratic people's Republics of the people. But I hope we won't have to make assessments like that for the US any time soon or ever. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I would say though that currently, it is the unpredictability of the situation that is the most cause for concern for travellers. Just imagine you are studying at a prestigious university in the US, and Trump suddenly decides to sign an executive order banning all international students, so you're going to get deported in spite of having all the proper paperwork and visas sorted out to be in the country legally. I hope that doesn't happen, but I think the point is that currently, the situation is in a state of flux. I think that regardless of your political persuasion, we can all agree that Trump has broken many long established conventions. I know this particular one is not relevant to travel but in general, presidents do not go on Twitter to criticise foreign leaders. Previous presidents would go through the proper diplomatic channels, and make use of official press releases to issue carefully worded statements to the public. The way Trump has criticised the Mexican president and Australian prime minister using Twitter is certainly unprecedented in this respect. The dog2 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this any better? K7L (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
In 2016 elections, Donald Trump drew populist support from the struggling rust belt by adopting a protectionist stance against Mexican and Chinese manufacturers; his platform included a multi-billion-dollar Mexico border wall and a ban on Muslim travel to the US. While the long-term travel impact of his policies remains unclear, a Jan 2017 executive order barring travel from seven predominately-Muslim countries has caused disruption. See the notices in the "Get in" section.
Or simpler:
In 2016, Donald Trump was elected president of the U.S. While the long-term travel impact of his policies remains unclear, a Jan 2017 executive order barring travel from seven predominatntly-Muslim countries has caused disruption and uncertainty. See the notices in the "Get in" section.
The political synopsis simply isn't needed as everyone able to travel is aware of his election and the issues around it. Ground Zero (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Either one works for me, but for the record, it's predominantly-Muslim. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
If he was elected on a platform of making it more difficult for Hispanics, Muslims or any other identifiable group to visit the US, that targets travel directly. It's very much within our mandate to disclose this. K7L (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I think I'd go with the first one. It is indeed true that he proposed a ban on Muslims entering the US during his election campaign, and that could be a concern to foreign Muslims who wish to visit the US. But yes, I think it's succinct enough, and it does serve the purpose of giving a brief overview of the political situation without preaching any particular political stance. The dog2 (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
And when he does make further changes, we absolutely should explain them. This is a high-profile article that we can be sure will be updated within hours of any change being made. His protectionist stance against Mexican and Chinese manufacturers if of interest to manufacturers, of course, but they are not our target readership. The border wall is not an issue for travellers, but any additional border control measures he puts in place would be an issue we should cover if/when he does. Ground Zero (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
This text is in United States of America#History, for whatever reason. It makes no sense for it to be in that section if the historic context (as to what is happening and why) is stripped. K7L (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you, K7L. A minimal amount of background is appropriate, and the main issue is that he is not an ordinary American politician, and his unpredictability means that prospective travelers to the U.S. need to pay close attention to what's happening that might affect them. But if we're using geographic designations, I'd use the following phrasing: "In the 2016 general elections, Donald Trump drew populist support from the struggling but populous rust belt as well as Republican base regions such as the South and Great Plains..." There's no reason whatsoever to be exhaustive, but we can educate readers a little. However, if people feel like this is redundant, I approve of the slightly longer text above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd be very surprised if, in a paragraph, we can tell WV readers something about the Trump presidency they don't already know, and I will be extremely surprised if we can write something that people on both sides will agree is neutral or balanced. What is there now is neither, but it is rambling and contentious and should be replaced quickly. Ground Zero (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this is simply in the wrong section? This is in #History, an overview which points to a string of timeline articles. That overview gives the 1960's Civil Rights movement a paragraph, the Vietnam War nothing more than a brief mention in passing, says nothing at all about the legacies of most of the leaders - ranging from Nixon/Watergate to Obama. Only three presidents (Washington, Lincoln, FDR) and one other public figure (MLK) are mentioned by name at all. If we were to mention Russia breaking into DNC records to steal 2016's election for Trump, we'd also have to mention the 1972 Watergate break-ins as more of the same. The rust belt and decline of America's heavy industry is a part of US history which deserves a place in the timeline, as is the race to the Moon. Trump, while a disaster, will have to earn his place. Maybe his presidency will be as historic as Nixon's, but he has to earn that.
The concern expressed by the original poster on this thread was "While current events are always notable, it is impossible to accurately judge the weight to give them in the context of the nation's history. Until we have something actually historic to say about Trump's presidency, I don't think a paragraph about how controversial he is is warranted or desirable."
That concern appears valid. While we do have to cover any "Muslim ban" or "Mexico wall" platforms which have caused or are likely to cause impediments to travel, this doesn't belong in the #History section. Is there a place for this elsewhere in the article? K7L (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The Mexico wall is not an impediment to the travel covered by WV. If there are restrictions imposed on crossing the Mexican border legally, they would relevant to our travel coverage. WV should not attempt to be a guide for illegal migration. We just won't do a good job of that. Ground Zero (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
We're dealing with a régime which is cancelling valid visas while the traveller is in flight. Do you realistically expect a tightened Mexican border isn't going to come with more restrictions on perfectly legitimate traffic? K7L (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
You're extrapolating and speculating there. I have not heard anything from the regime about tightening rules on legal migration or tourism from Mexico. If we can find something real on this, we should add it. Ground Zero (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well "make Mexico pay for it" might end up with higher visa fees and the likes. But of course speculation is idle at this point. While "wait and see" is a really bad approach to the likes of Trump in the real world, it might be a good one for a wiki that is overtly apolitical. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Trying to move this al ong, how about:
In 2016, Donald Trump was elected president of the U.S. at the end of one of the most divisive campaigns in recent memory. The long-term impact on travel of his policies remains unclear: a Jan 2017 executive order barring travel from seven predominantly-Muslim countries has caused disruption and uncertainty. See the notices in the "Get in" section. His campaign proposals suggest that further restrictions on travel can be expected, especially affecting those from predominantly Muslim countries and from Latin America. Ground Zero (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
That seems very straightforward, travel-related and objectively accurate. If people don't like having it in "history" because you think history doesn't apply to politicians currently in office (I would strongly disagree), it could be put in "Get in". Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's fine too. The technical definition of history is anything that has happened in the past, so even if it only happened yesterday, it would also fit under the definition of history. The dog2 (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your definition, for whatever it's worth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(indent) I don't have a problem with the wording, but that paragraph is really awkward standing at the end of the History Section. Talking about speculated travel restrictions in the one section that actually isn't travel-related. I'm not sure we even need to mention the election at this point in the History section. Aside from "As of January 2017, the current president of the United States is President Trump." there doesn't seem to be anything more to say. It's been just a few weeks. Are we seriously going to update that section to give weekly updates on the US President like we do with zero other countries? That sounds like weak activism to me. We really don't need to be phone-tapping world leaders to write our history sections. It's not that deep. Political activism should be taken elsewhere.

On the relevant section, "Get in", the last sentence is confusing. The purpose of "Avoiding travel in the US" is to reach countries that are not the US. That should be mentioned, because right now it's just shoved in there without explanation. Shouldn't it specifically state that for those who may be from suspended countries who were planning on travel to another nation via the US, see "Avoiding travel in the US"? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it political activism. As far as I can see, we've tried to vet the paragraph to ensure that we are neither promoting nor rejecting Trump's agenda, but simply trying to give a background behind the immigration ban. I think we can all agree that if you are a potential tourist from one of the affected countries, the ban could potentially be disruptive for you. Whether or not the ban is warranted is a separate issue and probably a very divisive debate that I won't get into here, but I don't think even the most fervent Trump supporters will deny that the ban has inconvenienced those from the affected countries. The argument will simply be that the ban is necessary to protect Americans. But anyway, from the way it is written, I don't think we have written about whether we support or reject the ban. As far as I can see, the paragraph simply states how the policies of the current administration could potentially disrupt the plans of potential travellers. The dog2 (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if you understood my points. The first paragraph is about the History section. The history section isn't where we talk about travel restrictions. It's not supposed to be "History of travel", it's just history. In looking at other History sections, I'd say we don't do a very good job in "ending" them overall, but ending with the random immigration ban here (regardless of neutrality) or Brazil's World Cup protestors are off the mark, in my opinion. (El Salvador and even Burundi's very short history section ends better than most of our country History sections.) That's why I said we should just let it end with something that essentially just says "The current president is President Trump" or leave that out altogether and just say something about America continuing to be an important and influential nation. History sections should by necessity end with very broad non-specific points, since no country stands still in time and these pinpointed moments as being so defining that we end the nation's history with them just don't read well. The second paragraph is about the travel restrictions and nowhere did I even remotely suggest deleting them or that it was not relevant. All I said was that our link to Avoiding travel in the US is not written well. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I concur completely with User:ChubbyWimbus. The revised paragraph is much improved from when I initially started this discussion, but it still seems out of place with the tone and scope of the rest of the History section. Powers (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @ChubbyWimbus:, I don't think that unilaterally removing all reference to Trump after this long discussion with the edit summary "Try to end it in a fair but open way" is a good approach. Clearly a lot of people think he has to be mentioned for completeness. I'm one of them. I do think it makes sense report the fact of his election in a neutral, simple way, rather than getting into a discussion of why he won the election. I proposed the longer version as a way of compromising with those who felt that context should be provided. Taking the absolutist approach of deleting the paragraph altogether is not going to be seen as "fair" by the many people who do not share your view. Ground Zero (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The history section may indeed be the wrong place to mention Trump's election (though we may argue that the fact that he "won" despite a near 3 000 000 popular vote deficit and the endorsement of pretty much no newspaper of any repute is historical no matter what he does in office), but some place should mention it. Especially since most of our readers will be asking what effect Trump has on their visit or planned visit. Not mentioning Trump would be a bit like not mentioning Hamas in the article on the Gaza Strip. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
History might be being made, but the analyse can happen later. Let's stick to being a travel guide and let people know was the present impact to their travel is. If anyone here has views on the Trump presidency then I suspect there may be some other places on the interwebs that would provide an outlet to discuss them. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with the statement which was inserted to replace the Trump text, "Still the overall living standards in the US are among the highest in the world and the nation continues to be a leader in global politics and economics." It's safe to say the US is the largest economy, but "a leader in global politics"? Given the last few weeks, "comedy of errors" would be more apt. In any case, this belongs in some other section for now as Trump isn't history yet. K7L (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
While I strongly believe that Wikivoyage does not use the phrases "gong show", "omnishambles", and "clusterf*ck" nearly enough, doing so here could be, um, contentious. How about we replace that sentence with "In January 2017, Donald Trump was sworn in as President of the United States", and leave it that so we can all get on with building a travel guide? Ground Zero (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I would like to add "despite losing the popular vote by a record two million nine hundred thousand something votes" but that would be contentious. I think replacing what is there with this short, crisp statement would be better. If and when Trump declares war on Vanuatu we can of course mention that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
True. He only lost by "286·8692 votes, a margin ten times the entire population of Vanuatu". Hopefully all 2,868,692 don't cross into Emerson at once, making Manitoba suddenly our fourth most populous province? K7L (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(indent) This is precisely why what I wrote is better. You guys are showing that you have ulterior motives for your ravenous desire to throw in a line about Trump. If you don't think America is still a world power, you're lying to yourselves. The US is certainly a leader in global politics. When Trump talks (or even Tweets), world leaders actually react (probably more than necessary), and the same was true for Obama, Bush, and on back for decades. That's not the case for the leader of Vanuatu, since the nation was brought up. Many world leaders probably don't even know who heads Vanuatu offhand. To say the US is not a leader in global politics is a fantasy. There is still no other nation (including Europe's "Union") that has more sway and influence in the world. You can hope for that to change and for the destruction of America, death to Americans, and make tired "haha the popular vote" gags, but do it on your personal blogs. It doesn't belong here. Let's end the anti-Trump circle-jerk by dropping mention and moving on to constructive editing. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the popular vote a joke and neither would most small d democrats. Also criticism of Trump is not exclusive to the "death to America" crowd. The main reason why people are so glued to Trump's Twitter feed is because the US seems to have ceased being predictable and reliable and the utterings of the President are perhaps the closest thing to a domestic or foreign agenda we're going to get. At any rate, Trump is neither a usual President nor a usual politician which was one of the main selling points for his supporters, really. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@ChubbyWimbus: I am not clear how my proposal to add "In January 2017, Donald Trump was sworn in as President of the United States" shows ulterior motives or suggests a desire for the destruction of America. Perhaps you could suggest constructive changes to make it more neutral. As far as the line about the US bring a leader, we could argue that, but it is clear that it is contentious and we're better off leaving it out of our travel guide. As you say, it is better to argue that out in a blog. Ground Zero (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Hobbitschuster that it's generally accepted across the political spectrum that Trump is not your conventional leader. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up for debate, and definitely does not belong in this guide, but I think that simply stating that he is unconventional is not a biased statement. And well, I think we can all agree that from both an economic and military perspective, the US is still by far the world's most powerful and influential country. I would be careful about calling any country the best though, since that is subjective, and depends on how you define "best" since no country is perfect. I'd actually question whether or not the US really has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Sure it's better than much of Africa, Latin America and Asia, but is it better than say, Scandinavia, Western Europe, or even Canada? From my personal observations, Iceland definitely seems to have a lower poverty rate than the US. And even Singapore's public housing is in much better shape than the Projects in the US. The dog2 (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I did not write that the US was "the best" country in the world here nor in the History section. That kind of emphatic statement is always going to rub someone the wrong way. My words all marked it as part of an unspecified top tier of nations on the three mentioned fronts. Trump was elected in part due to his being perceived as an establishment "outsider", so yes, he is "different" from the born-and-bread politicians however, I don't see any value in trying to add a line about "An eccentric new leader" being elected either. The US is at least on par in most regards with Canada, Scandinavia and Western Europe; certainly enough to hold up the claim that Americans have AMONG the highest standard of living in the world. (Very few people countries and people actually make up your list) "Among" does not mean "the absolute highest" which of course would be a boring and pointless debate. I tried to end it with a description of the US that has been representative for a while and is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. I think it's the better way to go. Just to provide another comparison, the Canada article ends in 1982. No mention of Trudeau or any arguments about whether he's a "lovely-locked leader who cares deeply about all citizens and the concerns of minorities in the hopes of maintaining and strengthening Canada's multicultural society" or "the anti-white, Canada-hating globalist who some claim to be the bastard child of Castro, who fights every day to destroy Canada's culture, values, and freedoms". Nope, he's given no mention and adding him doesn't seem necessary either. Some may argue that is just another example of poor History endings (I'm sure it could be improved), but I think it's still good perspective to show that there is no need to obsess over trying to make every day into something historically noteworthy. I don't mind if others have a crack at editing my line. I'm not safeguarding it. I do think that we should have in mind something broad and non-specific in these History section endings (in all country articles), as I said before (and to leave Trump out for now). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Well Trudeau is not the child (bastard or otherwise) but the child of a very successful (if you measure success as "succeeding in what you set out to do, no matter what it is and no matter whether it is good or bad") if not uncontroversial prime minister in his own right. A fact that crops up remarkably little in both the swooning and the condemning portrayals of him written by non-Canadians. And while I think we don't need to be current for the sake of being current, some events are so immediately obvious as noteworthy that they are "history" even while they're happening. In Germany most of those happen to fall one ninth Novembers of some kind or other. And while the US definitely is "among" the places with the highest standard of living (even if some people in "the bad part of town" will see little of that in their lives), the same is true for most member states of the EU, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and probably a half dozen other states. Heck, you could even make an argument for saying something like that about Panama. I don't think this is particularly worthy of mention, unless we mention it in the context of a remarkable rise over a short period from the poorhouse of (insert geographic region) to one of the places with the highest living standards on earth. The US has been many things and North America was indeed once considered less valuable a possession than Latin America, but the US have never been the poorhouse of the Americas. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I see no reason why the ending of the "History" section should even mention Herr Drumpf. This could just as easily conclude with an economic or sociological comparison, from a generation ago to today. From the fuel shortages of the 1970s and the intense fears of losing automotive, photo and electronics industries to Japanese rivals - to the rise of automation - to the shift of heavy industry like steelmaking abroad and the replacement of "smokestack industry" with technology companies as the original Cold War ended and the Space Age gave way to the computer age. Hydraulic fracturing to squeeze every last fracking drop of oil out of the ground to reduce America's reliance of imports, ubiquitous inclusion of computers in every aspect of daily life, an economy where the relative stability of the 1950's and 60's (where huge factories run by big business and represented by big labour dominated entire sectors, US Steel or Bethlehem-style) to the current fast-paced environment where nothing is stable, life for many is economically precarious but many clever folk have become millionaires. Contrast the rust belt to Silicon Valley to see which way America has gone to draw a tentative 'conclusion' to its "History" section. K7L (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
That could work too. Come to think of it, the history section currently makes no mention of the restructuring of the American economy away from heavy industry towards a more service-based economy. And this is definitely a major reason why much of the Midwest suffers from urban blight, poverty and high crime rates. If the consensus is not to bring up Trump, I'm not going to push it, but mentioning this shift away from heavy industry is indeed a major factor behind Trump's election, as his promises to bring those jobs back have resonated with the workers. But back to the topic, anyone visiting the rust belt can indeed see just how bad it is for those laid off when heavy industry was shifted offshore, and even in places like New York City and Chicago which have somewhat restructured better, you can still see the vestiges of what were once factories, and some neighbourhoods that were once reliant of these factory jobs are now in a really bad state. The dog2 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It is at this point that I point out a) there has been at least one previous discussion on the history section where length did iirc come up and b) the article post-war United States exists and either deals or should deal with some of the historical trends you rightfully point out. Though it is perhaps written in a more positive tone than some would describe the "rust belt" in. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

United States of America#History is intended to be a brief summary of a well-intentioned 240-year experiment in democracy which began in 1776 and ended on November 2016. By design, it's general and brief as the detailed US history is in the series of historical travel topics: Indigenous nationsPre-Civil WarCivil WarOld WestIndustrializationPost-war. The rust belt, automation and offshoring of heavy industry should get a sentence here but not more than a short paragraph. The rest would fit into the individual articles. K7L (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Please have a look at Post-war_United_States#Decline_of_American_manufacturing_and_rise_of_the_tech_sector - I am sure the writing can be much improved upon still. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Please limit this discussion to talks about this article. Certainly there are many US-related articles that could benefit from further editing, but let's not get distracted. I think the discussion has entered a good place and is nearing the end (and maybe even is beneficial in thinking about how to end History sections for other countries that are not done well at the moment). I think K7L brought up some potentially good topics to frame our last sentences about US History. Care to take a stab at the editing? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
As I said, the history section is already pretty long and there have been calls in the past to shorten it. Part of the result of those are the aforementioned specialized articles. So having a more in depth treatment of certain aspects there is certainly something that should be looked at before potentially bloating the section here to be too long. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to make finding entries easier[edit]

I have made this arbitrary break to make this section more manageable. Please either respond below this or move this headline a bit further up. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

How about a permanent break? This thread is just a collection of snide remarks about the American president and a few hurt feelings around American exceptionalism. I guess if it confined to the discussion page then it isn't doing any harm per se, just be aware that this discussion isn't travel relevant at all. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It might contain a few snide remarks, but there were actually relevant points raised, among them whether the history section should mention Trump and in which way if so and whether we do the development in the "rust belt" justice with the way the history section is currently written. And I do think the decline of American manufacturing and the cities it happened in has travel relevance. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I think a good place would probably be somewhere in the last paragraph. Perhaps before the 9/11 attacks. The outsourcing of heavy industry to China and other countries really gained traction in the 1990's, so it might be a good place to mention that. Of course, we should also mention the rise of Silicon Valley and the tech industry as a counterbalance to the negative effects. What we have seen, though, is that the population of the US in the rust belt has shrunk, while that of California has boomed. The dog2 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Another government travel warning[edit]

I presume this should be added as a {{cautionbox}} instead of a {{warningbox}}, as it doesn't expressly indicate a non-obvious danger to life or limb? K7L (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

{{cautionbox|Nigeria has advised its citizens against any non-urgent travel to the United States until Washington clarifies its immigration policy, after several incidents in which people with valid visas were denied entry.[4]}}
That sounds right to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't we usually use Template:VisaRestriction for immigration-related warnings? Powers (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I suspect none of us were familiar with that template. I am not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


Given that there is a real chance that Jeff Sessions becomes the new Attorney General and other Trump appointments seem to have similar opinions on the relationship of federal drug laws to state attempts at medical marihuana or other cannabis decriminalization, should we note that the status of the substance being legal under state law while still illegal under federal law has never been resolved and this conflict is likely to come to a head under the Trump regime, likely to the detriment of cannabis consumers of all kinds. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A topic worth following, but I think we should stick to describing the current situation. Normally we start mentioning changes when they actually happen, rather than writing about what will or will not "likely" happen. Especially for an article like this, which is sufficiently popular in terms of edits to keep it up to date. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
True, but as certain media personalities associated with MSNBC would like to say "watch this space" Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Pet-friendly hotels[edit]

This edit asserts that "most hotels" are pet-friendly, but I question whether this is true. Pet-friendly hotels seem rare to me. Powers (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I worked in the hotel industry for almost a decade, at a number of different properties. While pet-friendly hotels are not exactly rare, they're certainly in the minority. Moreover, "pet-friendly" in hotel parlance generally means "dog-friendly", and that friendliness generally decreases as the size of the dog increases (the hard upper limit generally ranges between 30 and 50 pounds, though actual enforcement is usually nil given that most hotels don't actually have scales to weigh visiting dogs; service animals are obviously exempt from this rule). I don't think I've ever worked at, stayed at, or heard of any hotel where cats or other non-dog pets are allowed in guest rooms under any circumstances, though there might be a few, I suppose. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Certainly, I wouldn't bring my cat to one of Trump's hotels. He might try to grab her. K7L (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Do hotels commonly advertise their stance on pets? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
A search on "pet-friendly hotels" finds many websites dedicated to the topic, as well as pages on major franchisor sites like Best Western, Choice, Marriott, Doubletree. Often, an individual B&B or hotel listing will indicate a pet-friendly establishment. That said, pet-friendly venues are the minority and travelling with pets often awkward. K7L (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I will remove the comment then. Powers (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I must interject here, as I frequently travel with a cat (really!) and in my own experience have found that all hotels that accept dogs will also accept cats. I wouldn't know about turtles or ferrets though… –StellarD (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Connecting religion and politics[edit]

I removed the following about religion because A) it wasn't travel related as such, and B) it is not possible to make broad declarations that political voting is driven by religious affiliation in the US:

"Differences in religiosity largely correlate with politics, too, so the Northeast, West Coast, Hawaii and Chicago metropolitan area are generally progressive and Democratic; most of the South and heavily Mormon states like Utah, Idaho and Wyoming are very conservative and Republican; and much of the rest of the country (e.g., several Midwestern, Southwestern/Rocky Mountain, and Southern coastal states) is nearly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. A trend of the last few decades is one of increasing geographic political polarization. "

I'm sure there is some crossover - evangelicals and pro-lifers are likely to be leaning to Republican candidates, but given the election events of 2016 I think it is fair to say that it is a far more complex situation than that, and probably not one we should be addressing on WV. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree insofar as over quite a handful of elections the Republicans have steadily won "white evangelical christians" while losing the "everybody else" demographic in presidential elections. So religion is in fact a rather accurate predictor of political affiliation and it has only increased in the US (as opposed to e.g. Germany where the hold of CDU/CSU on Catholics seems to be weakening more and more). Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Andrewssi2, I don't understand your objections. That degree of religiosity is pretty strongly correlated with which party a person votes for is so well-founded and well-established that it's a truism in American politics. And what's relevant about such neutrally-phrased information is simply that it gives the reader a bit of basic understanding of the U.S. I would restore it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Precisely. Leaving aside the fact that what the excised text says is indeed generally true - anything I say about that would simply be redundant to what Hobbitschuster and Ikan have already pointed out - I think we do the site a disservice when we stick to a strict definition of what is "travel-related" and err too much on the side of leaving out background information. We do so to a greater degree than usual in this article out of sheer necessity - it's already one of the longest articles on the site, and would be many times longer if we didn't strictly limit how in-depth we go - but all the same, it's that background information, much more so than anything that would go in a "See", "Do", "Eat", "Sleep", etc. section, that's the reason why people travel in the first place. Anyone can make the rounds of the tourist sights and robotically snap photos, but without a context to put those things in, a story that they can be part of, what's the point? You want to get to know a place. And, whether we like it or not, the conjunction between and interplay of religion and politics is pretty well inescapable for anyone who spends any significant amount of time in the USA, especially these days. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
<returned text in face of overwhelming disagreement> I don't disagree with the sentiments expressed in the responses (although I wasn't trying to remove 'background information' but rather avoid too much explanation that becomes confusing), but the text as written does suggest a symmetry between religious belief and voting record. Religion is an influential factor but if it were that simple then elections would be eminently predictable (and 2016 was by any measure unpredictable) . Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The result was unpredictable, but the voting patterns not so much, as whites and especially whites without college degrees gravitated toward the Republicans. But there are big differences between how whites vote on the East and West Coast and in other parts of the country, and a lot of that is correlated with frequency of attendance at church.
If the correlation of everything had to be 100% for it to be OK to mention on this site, we could make no remarks about the people of any nation, culture, religion, ethnic group. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Well we might want to argue the wording, but I think bot h aspects - the connection between religion and voting behavior and the increasing geographic polarization are remarkable, especially since they have not historically occurred in the US, but have been rather striking in certain European countries in the past, where they are now often less visible today. Just take the Ruhr area and its "natural governing party" SPD or the Catholic Christian Democrat connection (ahem *gay SPD Landrat in the Bavarian Forest*) that used to be quite prevalent but are increasingly becoming tenuous at best. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I would agree that the connection is remarkable (literally meaning to be worth remarking upon) whilst not giving the impression that religion is the be all and end all of voting affiliation. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Main international gateways[edit]

In light of this edit, the interested parties are pointed to pages 35ff of this PDF detailing the data in question in pretty exhaustive form for 2015 (newer data doesn't yet exist here), so that any debate as may arise can be had on the basis of facts not feelings or having a hunch. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Taking a look at the stats in that article, San Francisco seems an arbitrary cutoff point to me..Houston looks much more fitting, given it drops from roughly 10x to roughly 7x Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but what is the question / point being made? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The edit in question ads SFO as a main international gateway, bringing the total to six (instead of the previous five). However, the numbers in the PDF I linked don't really support including SFO while limiting the number to six (nor is there any policy that does). SFO had (in the year of reference) 10,755,078 international passengers while the place immediately below it in the ranking, IAH, had 10,177,441 the place below IAH however, DFW, had 7,580,093 which is a much more significant drop. Thus I suggest making the cut at the three million jump, not the few thousand jump. Hence the stuff in comment tags. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it stands for people from Europe but from East Asia, the main entry points to the U.S. are most certainly LAX, SFO and JFK. Of course I know that many other American cities have flights to East Asia, but in terms of frequency and number of Asian cities served, these are without a doubt the main ones. And speaking of which, I wonder if it's worth mentioning that NRT and LHR are good hubs for flights to the US for those coming from East Asia and Europe respectively. The dog2 (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I edited the article Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Because of its subject, this article probably attracts a lot of editors who want to help out by adding a little bit here and a little bit there to elaborate on a particular topic or add a perspective unique to their region or state. The downside of this is that the article can become unwieldy and go into more detail than the typical traveller would want, e.g. the fairly lengthy explanation of how gift cards words. I would expect that most travellers are familiar with the concept, so probably only a cursory description would be needed. There are also cases where the same point is made in more than one place (full-service/fibe-dinibg restaurants). I've taken a few runs at this to trim it down, and encourage others to keep an eye out for well-intentioned excesses. Ground Zero (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Since April 19, the article has grown by about 4,000 bytes, mostly by people adding a few extra words here and there, elaborations, or a regional example or exception. I've cut some more out -- about 1,500 bytes, but we really have to remember that this article should not attempt to be a compendium of everything you need to know about travelling in America. Because that is something few people who be interested in reading. Ground Zero (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with your position, and would actually prefer people didn't add superfluous information given the size of this article. Unfortunately this article attracts the majority of edits, so that will always be a very difficult view to enforce. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep. The last edit that I revert was adding an example of vocabulary differences right before the link to "see English language varieties", in other words, starting to duplicate that article. There is one editor in particular who seems to enjoy adding little bits and pieces to this article regularly. If anyone disagrees with my trying to keep this article from becoming a juggernaut, please speak up. Otherwise, I will continue to revert unnecessary padding of this article. Andrew, I appreciate the efforts that you and @K7L: have made to cull the cruft that accumulates here. Ground Zero (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Associating people with their ethnicity's traditional foods[edit]

This is in "Respect":

In this regard, never associate anyone with any particular type of food or other traditions based on their race. For instance, asking a Korean-American about Korean food, a Chinese-American about Chinese food, a Mexican-American about Mexican food, an African-American about fried chicken or anything that is typically connected to someone's ethnic background is considered to be stereotyping and hence, very offensive to Americans.

I want to push back on this a little. Sure, asking an African-American to recommend a fried chicken place if you don't personally know the individual you're asking likes fried chicken (such as if s/he spontaneously brings up fried chicken in a conversation) can cause offense, because African-Americans being caricatured for eating fried chicken, watermelon and so forth is a trope. But if I know someone is Cantonese, I seriously doubt I'd offend them by asking whether there's any Cantonese restaurant they like. I'm Jewish, and I don't feel the least bit offended when people ask me for recommendations of good Jewish delicatessens in New York. I'm always happy to answer that question. So I think all this stuff really depends on context: Don't walk up to Mexican strangers and ask for a recommendation of a taqueria, but if you are having a conversation with someone you meet at a party and say you love Mexican food and wonder if they like anyplace in particular, would that necessarily be offensive? I think this bullet goes overboard and should be dialed back. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It does sound overly sensitive. I think in the original edit comments they said that an Australian-Asian wouldn't be offended but an American-Asian would. I guess in Australia (thanks to a racist immigration system until the 1950's) , most Asians are 1st, 2nd or third generation and have close connections to their ancestral country, whereas as in America you can easially encounter an Asian whose family goes back to the nineteenth century and would be generally bemused by a question about authentic Cantonese restaurants. In any case I think this falls in the bucket of "things to seriously not get concerned about" and remove it. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You could indeed, but most Cantonese-Americans I know do at least have places their family likes to go for banquets on special occasions, or they know about such places. I guess I know of one Korean-American who gets annoyed about questions about Korean restaurants since she seldom eats Korean food and then only home cooking, but she's also a difficult person in other respects, so I don't know if that really tells us much. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
It is probably more a general fact of life that if you ask someone a question based on their apparent ethnic origin then you will run a risk of offending them. Does it have to be travel advice? I'd say not... Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that there probably should be some mention of this. I'm not sure what the right way to phrase this will be but I do think the US is unusually sensitive in this respect. I do recognise that not everybody gets offended by this, but at least based on my experiences, general American culture regards this as stereotyping and it is generally taboo to ask people about any type of food that is typically associated with their ethnic background. For instance, many Chinese-Americans I have met find it very annoying when other people ask them about where to find good fried rice. Of course, I do know that is also depends on what ethnicity as well, as most Italian-Americans I have met have no issue about being asked about where to find good pasta and pizza.
As for the issue with African-Americans and fried chicken, I think this absolutely has to be mentioned. While this may be a Captain Obvious for Americans, many foreigners aren't even aware that this association even exists, and I only learnt about it after spending several months in the US, and this is something that absolutely could cause serious offence. So let's say for instance, I'm a tourist making an enquiry with an African-American receptionist at my hotel. I could have just unintentionally offended the person out of ignorance, as I wouldn't have been aware that this stereotype even exists, and my intentions would have been as innocent as wanting to eat some fried chicken since the US, since the US is known internationally for fried chicken. As a foreigner, I would like to point out that for many of us, fried chicken is considered to be general American cuisine, and not necessarily connected with any particular ethnic group. So I would say yes, this is most definitely something travellers need to be made aware of. The dog2 (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I tried to rephrase this when I first saw it, and utterly failed. The spirit of it is "Don't make assumptions about a person based on their race or skin color." Maybe some explanation could then be added, to say that because the U.S. has a long and ongoing history of immigration, you can't tell by looking at someone whether they are culturally American or fresh off the boat. But that doesn't make up for the fact that the main point being made is universally applicable, and should be Captain Obvious (even though it sadly probably isn't for a large number of people). In no culture is it safe to make assumptions based on a person's skin color, even in a homogeneous country like Japan. And asking a black person about fried chicken is about on par with asking a French person about snails, or asking a Scottish person about haggis.
That's not to say you can't ask about fried chicken! If you're asking the hotel concierge where to find some good fried chicken, and the concierge happens to be black, I wouldn't expect there to be a problem. Presumably, you chose them because it's their job to answer questions like that, not because of their skin color.
I have a hard time seeing how this is not advice from Captain Obvious. Maybe some people need to adjust their world view in order to realize "Gee, if I asked a French or Scottish person a question like that back home, it would be offensive, so it's probably offensive here to ask a black person a similar question." But how is that specific to the U.S., and not a general travel problem of sometimes not seeing other cultures equivalently to your own? --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the fried chicken thing is different on a couple of levels. First of all, Haggis and Snails are actual traditional foods of the areas in question. Fried chicken is not exactly "African American cuisine" (and yes, such a thing exists or has historically existed). As a matter of fact, if asked who "typically eats fried chicken" I'd either say Ketuckians or people from Central America (basically all non US fast food chains there are fried chicken). And while I consider the Lederhosen and whatnot stereotypes about Germans (which really only apply to Bavaria and only Altbaiern at that) annoying, I consider them a lot less offensive than caricatures of African Americans that have no discernible basis in any observable reality. I think it might also be wise to inform readers of some stereotypes they mightn't have heard of to avoid offense. Even major German newspapers get elementary things about African Americans wrong, as seen in a left wing (!) paper putting "Onkel Barack's Hütte" (Uncle Barack's Hut; hut also being slang for house in German) as a headline with the White House upon his election Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself but personally, I would not be the least offended if a visitor to Singapore asks me where to have good chicken rice, kaya toast, laksa or any of the dishes typically associated with Singapore, or even if they ask me for recommendations for good Chinese restaurants. But I guess this issue is more minor and if everyone desires for it to be removed, so be it.
I must say, though, from a foreigner's perspective, that the fried chicken thing is most certainly not obvious to foreigners. I, for one, have grown up associating fried chicken with generic American cuisine (perhaps due to the influence of American fast-food chains like KFC and Popeye's), and not specifically African-American cuisine. If someone is not aware that such caricatures even exist, it is easy to see how they could easily offend an African-American without having the slightest clue why that person was offended. Therefore, I think that travellers should at least be made aware of this issue, so no unintentional offence is caused. The dog2 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect The dog2 , I believe that your observations on race in the US is very much on the overly sensitive side. Wikivoyage is a guide to travel, not a guide to avoid low-level offending people in every possible scenario. Yes, we need to respect people and customs when we travel to other countries, but recommending that I don't ask where I might find a good Korean restaurant in Atlanta is seriously not good travel advice. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying you can't ask anyone at all. My impression is that in the situation you mentioned, it's OK to ask someone who is obviously a non-Asian, but if you ask a Korean-American, that person may see it as stereotyping and get offended unless the two of you are very close friends. The dog2 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I can ask an African American about Korean restaurants, but not an Asian-American? Sorry, but your observation and recommendation is just utterly wrong. Again, we are not in the business of avoiding offense at all costs, but providing real travel advice. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Dog, don't you agree that this is highly context-dependent? If you ask Chinese-Americans for favorite places for fried rice, you demonstrate that you don't know anything about Chinese food beyond the most superficial, but if I'm speaking with a Cantonese-American and say that I eat Chinese food more than any other kind when I eat out and really love high-quality Cantonese banquet food, and does s/he know anyplace s/he'd recommend, that's not stereotyping, it's a legitimate question that absolutely can have a "no" answer if s/he doesn't know such a place. It seems to me that you've associated with Americans on the extreme end of the "P.C." continuum. Even (especially?) in liberal cities like New York, we just don't have such a thin skin. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, it may well be the case that some of the Americans I have associated with are exceptionally sensitive even by American standards. Given that you grew up in America, go ahead and change it what you feel is more accurate. But I still stand by my point that I think the fried chicken issue should be mentioned in some form. Although my point may seem counterintuitive given the dominance of American popular culture throughout the world, this is one of the issues that a foreigner who has never lived in the US may very well not be familiar with. In any case, Hollywood doesn't show us the complete picture of what actual American society is like, so it really is not inconceivable that some aspects of American culture may not be well-known to foreigners. The dog2 (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Fried chicken and watermelon, and neither would be obvious to a foreigner, whereas the offensiveness of asking a Chinese- or Korean-American whether they eat dog - a bigoted question that's hardly unknown in this country - should be obvious. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

[unindent] Well, here's my edit. Unfortunately, it made the section longer. I think I'm going to subtract the least essential parts and stay with the fried chicken and watermelon only, but if anyone thinks it's really important to add the rest back, you have my blessing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Excision here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess that looks fine. I'll trim it a little further since there's one sentence that I think is probably not necessary since it's already covered in the rest of your edit. If there's anything to add in, maybe Chinese-Americans and fried rice would be a point to add (though I must say that fried rice is most certainly not only Chinese, and I personally do enjoy Thai crab fried rice and Korean kimchi fried rice), but that's nowhere near as offensive as the trope about African-Americans and fried chicken, so I'm fine if it stays out. The dog2 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said, the really offensive slur is that Chinese or other East Asian people all eat dog and cat. But we just can't put everything in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
For the record, if there's one thing I've never heard about New Yorkers as a group, it's them having thin skin. And I have heard quite some negative things about them (in addition to all the positive stuff) Hobbitschuster (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Whatcha lookin' at?! :-P Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Another issue with the "Respect" section[edit]

"There are Native American reservations scattered throughout the country."

I understand the desire not to offend, but as far as official terminology is concerned, the United States has "Indian reservations", not "Native American reservations". The former term is how Department of the Interior refers to them collectively, and the official names of the individual reservations generally follow the formula of "(name of tribe) Indian Reservation", "(name of tribe) Reservation", or "(name of tribe) Nation", with none including "Native American" in their name. It also perhaps bears mentioning that Wikipedia has refused repeated page move requests of w:Indian reservation to w:Native American reservation.

Additionally, it's not even clear whether the term "Indian reservation" is generally considered offensive among the demographic group in question. Surveys consistently fail to show any clear preference of what term they feel should be used to refer to them; generally, "Native American" and "American Indian" poll in a statistical dead heat of 35-45% each, with the balance preferring the unqualified "Indian" or other lesser-known terms such as "Amerindian" and "Aboriginal American". I think the muddled picture painted by those statistics bolsters the argument that we ought to stick with the official terminology in this article, especially since we already touch on preferred terminology in the bullet point directly above.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Change the wording accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
No disagreement from me. Though there is one term for the ethnic group(s) in question that should never be used in polite company. And that's currently trademarked as a Football team name. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
uncyclopedia:Birmingham Niggers minor-league baseball? K7L (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"Redundant Map"[edit]

I think 'redundant map' is code word for 'dynamic map'. I believe Dynamic Maps have very much proven themselves on this site, and I would suggest it is time to replace our US map with one. I appreciate that this is heresy to some, but the Static Map can still be the backup option as per the example here.

What more needs to happen to adopt the dynamic map on this article? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

What's the problem with the static map? Wikivoyage practice to date has been to use static maps at the region level and higher. I don't see the problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with Ikan Kekek, especially because maps for articles as high on the breadcrumb hierarchy as this one need to show the color-coded regions breakdown, which is currently impossible to do with a dynamic map. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually that isn't true anymore. Please see this map for North India that demonstrates regions can be color coded very effectively on a Dynamic Map --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
It's redundant in that it provides no information at all beyond what's already on the static map. It's nice that we can have color-coded regions but I certainly don't think it's preferable to use numbered markers over clear on-map labels. That North India map is especially silly, as it labels cities outside the region more clearly than those inside! Powers (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
In addition to what Powers said, the entire point of dynamic maps is to provide a more user-friendly alternative to static maps. It's not at all clear to me how to edit the region borders of such a dynamic map - and if it's anything like the mapmask function used to delineate borders on e.g. Buffalo/Allentown and the Delaware District, there's nothing user-friendly about it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Simply put the static map for this area has extremely limited number of labels. You can't really zoom in to find anything if you wanted to on a static map. For dynamic map labels in this particular region - one has to zoom in (whether or not the dynamic map has shading) in order to see them as most of them are extremely small in the first place. I lightened the shading a bit on the article page. The markers are there simply to highlight the cities and other destinations as mentioned in the region article. Easy enough to get rid of them and the shading by unchecking the groups when viewing the dynamic map.
  • The point is that dynamic maps do in fact provide a more user-friendly alternative to static maps for the viewer and not for the one who has to create and maintain them. I totally agree that getting there is the biggest problem to overcome. We all appear to be floating with our own life preservers in a big undefined ocean. I believe that to create or edit the boundaries one would get involved with OpenStreetMap. Another possible future option that might come into play is retrieving/editing the data in Commons. Yet another is to define the boundaries (all the lat/long) positions and actually put them into GeoJSON format directly, in a table, a template or some other means.
  • It is probably preferable to use templates to make things happen with dynamic maps; however, they do not fulfill some needs and that alone may warrant the direct use of the Kartographer extension. Because of our user transparency goals, we wouldn't expect a casual editor to know how to use Kartographer anymore than using ParserFunctions, magic words, write Modules or templates and now-a-days wiki format coding and html etc.
  • I suppose I started this all when I did a test on the Himalayan North page. Perhaps the answer is to use both the static map and dynamic map together in region articles in particular. -- Matroc (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Andrewssi2, technically, it's not easy to transfer what was done at Himalayan North to the U.S. map. If I understand the process correctly, the templates are calling a predefined boundary from Wikidata (which gets it from OpenStreetMap, assuming the links between Wikidata and OSM are set for the page). This can work well for regions that have official administrative boundaries, but for our nebulous regions -- like many of the top-level US ones -- there is no pre-defined boundary in OSM so it's not as simple as plugging in the Wikidata property. It's possible to trace boundaries and colour-code them (I did it recently here), but it involves a lot of tedious tracing that doesn't look good zoomed in and clutters the page with reams of numbers unless you move the coordinates off the page. It's still very much a work in progress.
I agree with Matroc that perhaps the answer is to use both static and dynamic maps. Dynamic maps give the user more freedom to explore and can easily be made clickable to enhance usability; a well drawn static map can highlight the essentials for the traveller at one glance and are more easily available offline. I'm not sure why we need to say it's an either/or proposition.
And, for what it's worth, I think the dynamic map at Himilayan North is an upgrade over the static map, so we'd be better to keep it. The US region map, however, has more info that isn't easily drawn out in a dynamic map, so I don't think it's a good candidate to be replaced by a dynamic map. -Shaundd (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
When I load the Himalayan North page, the map shows labels for cities outside the region and only icons for the cities inside the region. This makes no sense. I don't understand how this is an upgrade. I have to click on an icon to see what it is, or look over at the article. But that's weird since it's clearly possible to have written labels directly on the map. Powers (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
True, but when I load the Himilayan North static map, I see a map with no cities, no other destinations, no airports and no labels -- basically no context except three coloured regions and some borders. If a dynamic map can accurately show the same three coloured regions + add markers for destinations inside the region and labels for large cities outside the region, it seems like an upgrade to me. I'm not arguing that dynamic maps are ready to replace static maps at the region level, just in the particular case of Himilayan North I don't think it's a big deal because the static map isn't very useful (IMO). -Shaundd (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Again the labels you are looking for do not appear simply because they are low in the label hierarchy for OpenStreetMap. As stated before you would have to zoom in to see them. Shading has nothing to do with the unseen written labels in that area of the map. If you click on a marker located in text - a map will popup at a different zoom level and all the labels you would desire will show up (the zoom level different). -- Matroc (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of the cause of the problem; that doesn't make it not-a-problem. Powers (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
In summary I think it is clear the Dynamic Maps have promise, but are not quite ready yet for the country level article. The gaps are A) Wikivoyage USA region definitions in OSM and B) Some aesthetic details on Dynamic Maps for close zooms --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


This article has been recently targeted by an anonymous, IP-hopping, edit-warring vandal. Therefore, I have temporarily restricted edits of the article to autoconfirmed users. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking that we should consider permanent semi-protect to our most established articles. I know not a popular opinion with some, but we do seem to get a lot of people who stumble onto WV and feel that they can just jump into United States and start hacking away with their thoughts and opinions. It is also a very long article as it is and hardly lacking for content --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I do not think semiprotection of any of our articles should be undertaken unless to ward off specific and concrete vandalism. The semiprotection right now is justified. I do not think anew indefinite semiprotection would be. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it was vandalism, but the edit warring was unacceptable. I would have liked a shorter semi-protection period, though. Users like this tend to lose interest in less than a week. Powers (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


I was the first to remove Russia from the line about resurgent powers challenging the dominance of the US. I think it is hard to argue that a dilapidated wreck like Russia is in any position to challenge the US in anything. Having said that, the edit warring by the anonymous editor is a stupid waste of time, and semiprotection is warranted to stop it. This isn't a big deal. I can live with leaving Russia in. Ground Zero (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Reading the full sentence I think the inclusion is valid - "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has emerged as the world's sole superpower, and while its hegemony is increasingly being challenged by a resurgent China and Russia, it continues to play the dominant military, economic, political, and cultural role in world affairs."
It is true to say that the hegemony is being challenged fairly vigorously by Russia (see involvement of Syria and the threatening of Baltic nations as examples of this challenge). It is not quite the same as stating that Russia has any chance to surpass the economic or military position of the United States in the short or medium term. Obviously China does, and maybe putting them together makes parsing this confusing. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Russia may or may not have tried to influence the last presidential election. I don't know whether China ever did a similar thing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Many people would argue that Russia not only tried to influence that outcome but succeeded in getting Trump narrowly into office, and to my knowledge, no-one's ever even accused China of similar things. Instead, I believe the reports are that they've concentrated on industrial espionage in particular in the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it reads fine. Both of those countries can be pains in America's butt when it comes to influencing/manipulating international policy/economics/relations. They're both relevant. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Certainly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

My post was about the page protection and edit warring. As I wrote, "This isn't a big deal. I can live with leaving Russia in", so I'm not sure why everyone is still debating one side of the issue. It was settled before anyone joined the discussion. I've moved on to other things. Ground Zero (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess if you raise an issue [[Ground Zero]] in this article, it is going to be picked up on. My parsing of your initial statement was that you were unhappy with the edit and wanted to register this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Although I disagreed, I didn't respond because I'm not proposing to change anything, but yet the one-sided debate continues. I'm just trying to cap it off. Nothing to see here, folks, let's move along. Ground Zero (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I guess everything has been said, but has it been said by everybody, yet? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It is a bit like that explosion scene at the firework factory in 'Naked Gun' movie "Nothing to see here! Move along!" :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I may be biased because I was the one who wrote that sentence, but I think the wording is pretty clear and accurate. Both China and Russia have been increasingly trying to challenge America's dominance in international politics, but they're not quite there yet. Any sane person would tell you that despite these recent developments, the U.S. is still the undisputed most powerful nation on Earth. The dog2 (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep, absolutely no-one is proposing to change it. No-one. Do we have a "deeming provision" where we can say that everyone is considered to have weighed in on the issue so we can close the single-sided debate and move on? Because the issue is settled. There is no debate here. Ground Zero (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Taking Scissors Away[edit]

From the {{VisaRestriction}} box, in Special:Diff/3207575/3208368: "The ban has been voided by the courts, but if you come from those or other Muslim-majority countries, you should still expect close scrutiny by the TSA, if you arrive by plane, even in transit to another country."

This seems to be mixing two unrelated concepts – the TSA (which is security, taking scissors away so they don't turn up airside) and the immigration authorities (who are just as far out-of-control, but which have a different mandate). TSA isn't in the passport and visa restriction business, as far as I know? K7L (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

They can prevent people from leaving, but please edit the text. The important thing to me was not to leave it as proclaiming the existence of an executive order that's been voided by the courts, but then secondarily, to also indicate that Muslims are likely to face close scrutiny on entering or leaving or the U.S. by plane. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I've changed the wording to "portions of the ban have been temporarily halted by the courts". SCOTUS looks to have left the ban partially in place for now – which does adversely affect the voyager.
That said, this probably should mention CBP and "extreme vetting". That's a different animal from TSA. Most court rulings indicate a Muslim ban would be illegal because of the 1st Amendment establishment of religion clause, but customs and immigration have a wide (largely accountable to nobody) latitude to turn any non-citizen away for any reason or no reason at any time. This could be used as an effective loophole to turn Muslims away because of their political beliefs, after a lengthy search through their mobile devices, their data, their social media posts and anything else that may amuse Homeland Insecurity. Ultimately, any Trumped-up reason will do, as being turned away once is a guarantee of trouble on all subsequent travels.
Airport security is entirely separate from visa restrictions. K7L (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Slang in Talk Section[edit]

I previously added a statement about "Uncle Sam" but it was deleted as it supposedly only belongs in the English language varieties article. I did start another discussion there for which there are currently no replies but anyway, I think this might be useful information, since Americans do commonly use "Uncle Sam" to refer to the federal government, but not the state or city government. I also think we need to establish some form of consistency between articles, and the "United Kingdom" article does go into some political slang in its talk section, such as "Westminster" for the UK Parliament, or "Holyrood" for the Scottish Parliament. For consistency sake, we should come to a consensus on whether such slang belongs in a country's talk section, because it makes absolutely no sense that it is OK in the United Kingdom article but not this article. The dog2 (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In my view, under normal circumstances you'd be right to place that information here rather than in English language varieties. However, due to its sheer length, this article is treated as a special case. As you probably know from previous discussions on this talk page, the consensus that has evolved vis-à-vis this article is that strict curation of new information is required, especially in terms of relevancy to the traveller, to keep this thing from becoming even more monstrously long than it already is. Unfortunately, on that basis I have to agree with the reversion. It's an interesting tidbit, and it would IMO be fine to pad out a shorter article like United Kingdom with analogous information, but a visitor to the U.S. from overseas could survive perfectly well without knowing that "Uncle Sam" = "federal government", and it's not the end of the world if we leave that factoid out. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The large majority of our 200 country articles do not cover political slang, so for consistency between articles it makes absolutely no sense that it is not addressed in most country articles but it is in the United Kingdom article. As I've noted above, the USA article is growing like topsy in part because contributors like The dog2 continually add little tidbits here and there, a few words, an extra sentence or three, that they think might be interesting to some people. Their intentions are good, but they are failing to see the forest for the trees, as will our readers if this article become a compendium of everything about the USA. Ground Zero (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I will sound like a broken record, but Wikivoyage articles are not a place to store every single piece of tidbit and trivia that you find out about a country. Maybe you are learning all these facts about the US all the time, and that is great, but just because you know a thing does not make it traveler relevant and does not absolutely need sharing.
To put it another way, every additional sentence we add to this article makes it even less accessible to the traveller due to sheer length. Is that what you really want to achieve? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
A constructive approach would be to try to make edits that don't make the article longer. So if there is something you think really should be added to the article, find something else that coyld be removed because it's out of date or something that could be explained more briefly. Check the combined edit to see if it's adding length, and if it is, find something else that could be removed. That way you get to add things without making the article gianormouser. Ground Zero (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course we should not add every useless bit of information, and I'm definitely willing to compromise on content, and some things may be in a bit of a grey area. But as far as I know, I've tried to be fair, and there have been times when I refrained from adding stuff in because I've tried to avoid unnecessary length. If you really look at my edit history, I've also trimmed stuff down before when things were really getting into unnecessary pedantic details (like what I did with the Switzerland "talk" section). But I think that as a foreigner who has lived in the US, my perspective from facing that culture shock would allow me to notice things that Americans won't. Let's just take the fried chicken issue I previously brought up as an example. To an American who grew up in the US, not asking a black person where to get fried chicken is commonsense. However, to a foreigner, it's not immediately obvious that there is an association between black people and fried chicken, as many of us aren't even aware of those caricatures. So while an American would know this intuitively without being told, a foreigner would need to be told about this so he/she doesn't offend anyone. So rather than insisting on deleting something for everything that is added, let's just take a case by case approach to curating content. Yes, unnecessary length could make important information lost in a sea of words, but conversely, cutting for the sake of cutting could also result in information becoming vague and less clear. The dog2 (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
As I've pointed out above, the article has been growing steadily month by month, even taking into account the cutting that Andrew, K7L and I have been doing. It would be appreciated if you would use some of your trimming skills on this article too when you are adding to it. As far as the Uncle Sam thing goes, in addition to the question of consistency with other country articles that you raised and now don't seem to be concerned about, I will ask why we would put in the Uncle Sam point here and not terms that would be of more direct relevance to travellers like gas/petrol, ATM/cashpoint/ATM, elevator/lift. I'm not suggesting adding those to this article, because vocabulary would quickly overwhelm the article, but I am pointing out that you want to add vocabulary that is of incidental relevance to travellers while we leave out more relevant terms. Ground Zero (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought the "Uncle Sam" thing would be useful based on reading of other articles, but after looking at Andre's reply, I saw that he also has a valid point so I decided not to press the issue further. And as for gas/petrol, that's covered in Driving in the United States, and ATM is pretty much standard in all countries except the UK. If you have noticed, I was the one who created the Driving in the United States article since many visitors get around the U.S. by car, and that allowed much of the information that was originally in the main article to be moved somewhere else. Perhaps as a suggestion to trim this article, we could also create a Sports in the United States article, since many visitors do travel to the US to watch sports, and that could cut quite a fair bit of length from the "Do" section. The dog2 (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We have American Football and Ice Hockey in North America as well as Major League Baseball what we lack is an article on the NBA. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems the OP wants to add their own life experience in the US to this article, which is not exactly compatible because this is a travel guide and not an immigration guide (hence the discord in this and other areas).
Perhaps we could just create an Immigrating to the United States article, similar to Retiring abroad. Then the OP would have an outlet for their contributions of living in the US, and we could keep this article concise and focused on the traveler? Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I would kindly appreciate it if people would stop misrepresenting me here. I've always yielded whenever the consensus goes against me, and I don't recall ever resorting to edit warring. People certainly need to be aware of some cultural issues when they travel because different cultures get offended by different things, and it's true that Americans tend to be more sensitive about certain issues that people of other countries, so visitors to the US need to be made aware of this so they don't offend people during their trip. In the same way, Americans visiting other countries need to be made aware of sensitive issues in those areas so they don't commit a faux pas. How is this only relevant to immigrants and not tourists? I understand there may be disagreements, but I hope people can respect my right to an opinion and logically debate with me, rather than relying on character assassinations and misrepresentations to discredit me for the sake of discrediting me. The dog2 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't the intent to misrepresent you, so apologies if offence was taken. If we stick to facts on actual edits made, then consensus is that added content is too detailed and makes this article too long for travelers. It should also be noted that many don't agree with your beliefs around offending people in the US, so it may be worth you considering that feedback.
I made a suggestion to create an article more suited to immigration experiences. If you don't like that idea then no problem, but please understand that making this article longer doesn't make it more useful. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
If it's an honest opinion that creating that article is useful, then of course I don't mind having that discussion. It just seemed to me like that the comment was sarcasm that you were using to make a mockery of me, so I apologise if I misinterpreted it. And well, I will concede that maybe my opinions on offending people in the US could be coloured by the fact that I have mainly interacted with Americans in a university setting, and it is somewhat true that American universities tend to be rather left wing. My friends who mainly interact with corporate America do report different experiences and a much less prominent PC culture than at universities. I will clarify that yes, when it comes to say, racial issues, Americans are in general much more touchy than Singaporeans, but perhaps some of the Americans I have interacted with are on the extreme end of the sensitivity spectrum even by American standards, so while I don't think my opinions are completely baseless, perhaps they could have been coloured by some of those experiences. The dog2 (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that your opinions are not baseless at all. Possibly more than any other country the cultural diversity and population size of the United States means that all manner of appropriate protocol are likely to be encountered. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be very easy for a person who "ha[s] mainly interacted with Americans in a university setting" to overestimate Americans' sensitivity to racial issues and the like. There are even many people on the left who've come to see the emphasis on (some might say obsession with) identity politics found at many American universities to be excessive to the point of counterproductivity vis-à-vis their own aims.
In the parallel discussion of this same issue at Talk:English language varieties, someone suggested creating a Political systems travel topic article. I think there'd be a stronger argument for that article than for Immigrating to the United States in terms of whether they fall within Wikivoyage's scope (I think I remember an instance - perhaps the Marriage in China VfD discussion? - where many users came out forcefully and specifically against the idea of Wikivoyage catering to people seeking to stay permanently in a place rather than just visiting). If it's really important to cover this information, I think doing so in a Political systems article would be my preferred solution.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think having an Immigrating to the United States article is a bit overkill. It's a very complicated process that I'm not sure we can cover satisfactorily on WV. That being said, people do travel for more long term purposes like work or study, and I think we should be useful to them too. I understand that WV should be travel focused, so I propose a guideline that if we include information relevant to more long term purposes like that, perhaps we can keep it to stuff relevant to the travelling and initial settling in phase. For instance, someone who wants to work in the US will first need to get a work visa, then upon arrival will need to get health insurance and a social security number. I think it's fine to cover them briefly as we have done in the article, but of course, getting into every detail about what daily life is for the "average American" is overkill.

As for race issues and the like, I'll concede on that point, but honestly, I have actually seen Americans fly into a rage over comments or questions that would be considered trivial, or even non-issues, in Singapore or Australia, so things like that do happen. But on a more positive note, I recently travelled to some of the more conservative parts of the US and it was actually quite a nice trip. Even in supposedly "more racist" areas that are almost entirely white like rural Utah and Idaho, I never even once felt threatened as a result of my race, and people were in general friendly and polite to me. The dog2 (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • "Political systems" is a research topic not a travel topic so it's out-of-scope, and immigration is also out-of-scope. I believe something similar to what The dog2 proposes is already in place. It is why we have just a general topic on retiring abroad and study abroad but not articles about specific countries. On race in America: Americans tend to have a very skewed view that they live in a society that is hostile to foreigners but foreigners themselves report that Americans are quite open, helpful, and friendly in most travel articles related to the topic that I've read. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a line between "too much detail" and "appropriate detail" that is not well defined on WV. When there is disagreement it is natural to explore new articles as a compromise mechanism. That is not to say the position on scope is right or wrong, but we need a better way of handling extra content. Perhaps even consider relaxing our Wikipedia linking policies.. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Your idea to relax our Wikipedia linking policy makes a lot of sense. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia will cover the issue much more effectively than Wikivoyage will as a travel guide. While Wikivoyage is "not paper", we also want our articles to be useful which means being readable. Someone considering a trip to the US may find an overly long and detailed article to be my useful for planning purposes. Links to relevant Wikipedia articles would help those looking for more in-depth information like thst covered by this discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hierarchy review[edit]

This country has thirteen regions; far above the recommended 7±2. We should consider some mergers.

One suggestion would be to combine Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming into the Northwestern United States, moving Colorado to the Southwestern United States. That would make one region less. /Yvwv (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Why? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
These regions would have more coherent geography. The Pacific Northwest stands out a bit strange as a two-state region, and the inland parts of Washington and Oregon have more in common with Idaho, than with the Pacific coast, both in terms of nature and culture. The Pacific Northwest can remain as an extra-hierarchical region, including British Columbia and northern California. /Yvwv (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Washington and Oregon have a lot in common with each other. What does either of them have in common with Wyoming? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
There are actually 8 regions and a handful of states that are not given a regional hierarchy. California could be merged with Pacific Northwest to form "West Coast". People reference those states with that term quite often. Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho would make more sense with the other Plains states than with the West Coast (Colorado has always been part of the "Southwest" to me). All of the Northeast could be combined, Florida could join the South... But the current way doesn't really bother me. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I could maybe get behind a Great Plains/Midwest merger. However, in a larger sense, the United States is an extraordinarily large and diverse country, and if a 13-region breakdown is what makes the most sense from a traveller's perspective (and I think that's true in this case), that always should take precedence over getting all hung up on the arbitrary 7±2 guideline. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The rationale for the 7±2 structure is mostly cognitive; a category with more than 7-8 items gets difficult to read and navigate. We should certainly not enforce a specific number; but if the list is made a bit shorter, the already overburdened article will be less heavy. /Yvwv (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, Plains States? I don't think so. They're primarily Mountain States. You want to equate them to states like Kansas that are flatter than a pancake? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
They're all "Those states out there" historically and still viewed that way by most today. I actually don't see them as that different from the Dakotas, for example. Places known for their nature, animals and rugged wilderness. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Can I suggest another way of looking at this? Alaska and Hawaii are probably always going to be mentioned separately, since they're not part of the contiguous 48 states, and are both very unique. If you don't count them (and maybe they could be separated by a sentence, just to break up the long list of colors and regions), that leaves only 11 regions. That's only 2 more than is recommended. And don't forget that 7±2 is only a rule of thumb to avoid long lists, not an absolute prohibition against them. We could possibly combine some or move some solo states into regions (Texas or Florida into the South, or California and PWN into West Coast), but the traveller comes first, and the regions we've been using here are pretty conventional. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

(P.S.: I should add, I don't really favor moving Texas, Florida, or California. The South already has 11 states in it; adding these would bring it up to 12 or 13, so you have the same problem you started with, and in any case Texas and Florida were excluded for good reason, because they do stand apart to some degree. Making West Coast the new region would be odd, because it would either contain 3 states (in which case we lose whatever work was put into Pacific Northwest, and have to try to blend together 3 states that are not necessarily all that alike), or we have a region that consists of 1 state and 1 sub-region, which seems pretty pointless.) --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The main issue is not the number of sub-regions below a specific country, but the number of regional articles which cannot be filled out with much information beyond the trivial. /Yvwv (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Which sub-regions would you say cannot be filed out with much information beyond the trivial? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
There aren't any subdivisions that can't be filled out beyond the trivial. There are probably some that are not currently filled out beyond the trivial, but that in itself isn't a valid argument against their existence. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The wordings about Yiddish and Pennsylvania Dutch in the "talk" section[edit]

I am not sure I am all that happy with the current wordings that make both languages/dialects (pick whichever your politics suggest) seem as if they were "basically German" or "German mixed with x" - they're not. They certainly have common ancestry with modern standard German and at least in the case of Pennsylvania Dutch there is an extent dialect in Germany that has visible similarities, but the same can be said for Dutch, Luxembourgian, Swiss German and Alsatian which are various levels of "not German". I know we aren't a linguistics textbook and unless someone searches for it explicitly, it is unlikely people come across more than the occasional word of Yiddish or any Pennsylvania Dutch at all, but if we can be accurate, let us try to do so. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised we're even mentioning this in an article so high up the breadcrumb hierarchy, especially one where excessive length and detail is such a persistent problem. I think it'd be fine to kick this information down to Pennsylvania#Talk, Ohio#Talk, and maybe Indiana#Talk, but even in those states the Pennsylvania Dutch language is confined to extremely insular and off-the-beaten-path communities of Old Order Amish, and it would be tough for a traveller to encounter a speaker even through seeking one out, let alone casually. It's certainly not necessary information for a traveller to the U.S. in general. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
If you go to New York City, you will see many orthodox Jews there, so it is actually not that rare for a visitor to hear Yiddish. And it's not just New York City. The East Coast has many orthodox Jewish communities, so chances are if you tour the East Coast, you will encounter people speaking Yiddish. I'm not sure about Pennsylvania Dutch, since I've never met Amish people before, but presumably they're mainly found in rural areas. The dog2 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Orthodox Jews are not to be conflated with Yiddish speakers. Orthodox Jews exist all over the East Coast and indeed nationwide, but the vast majority of them speak English; Yiddish is the language only of a small, conservative minority of Hasidim, which itself is a small, conservative minority within Orthodox Judaism. In point of fact, the Yiddish language in North America is almost wholly confined to Metro New York, and as such this is another bit of detail that can be devolved further down the breadcrumb trail. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The 'Talk' section is about how you can interact linguistically in the United States. If you feel that the summary of Pennsylvania Dutch is insultingly simplistic, then just remove any reference to it. It really not a subject required in this article at all. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's entirely that Chasidim are found almost exclusively in New York City. I've actually seen them at many places along the East Coast between Boston and Washington D.C. and even beyond. I ran into Chasidic Jews in Philadelphia, Boston and Washington D.C. as well, though I will concede that perhaps seeing these communities was an anomaly. Perhaps Ikan Kekek can weigh in on this because I certainly have heard quite a fair bit of Yiddish in public transport, at the airports and so on. The dog2 (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It may be worth checking out w:United_States#Language . In the United States 0.3 % of the population speak a German language or dialect (including Yiddish and probably Pennsylvania Dutch). My question is why the obsession here? I don't see a corresponding amount of effort in suggesting you learn Tagalog to talk to the more numerous (at 0.5% of the population) Tagalog speakers? French and its dialects are (at 0.6% twice as numerous as the German) are also absent from the discussion.
My point is, just because you personally find a language/dialect interesting doesn't mean it belongs in the 'Talk' section of a travel guide. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Yiddish is not a dialect of German, but that said, I agree with your point. I also would agree that Chasidim live in places beyond the New York Metro area, but that's not really the main point or this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, can we say more about indigenous languages? Is the point that aside from Navajo they hardly exist any more that seems to come across fair? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
At the risk of being seen as goy-splaining Judaism to a partly-Jewish audience: according to all the data I've seen, on a nationwide scale Yiddish is a minority language even among Chasidim. For instance, there is a modest-size Chasidic community in the northeastern suburbs of Buffalo, but they speak English almost exclusively. I'm given to understand that the same is true of Chasidic communities across the country, and that Yiddish is really only in general use among the Chasidim of New York City proper; Kiryas Joel, New Square, and the other shtetls of the lower Hudson Valley; that one borough in New Jersey whose name escapes me that's been in the news because of the growth of the community there Lakewood, New Jersey; and a few enclaves in South Florida.
Perhaps more importantly, I have yet to hear a convincing argument why any of this information needs to be included in this article at all. One thing Chasidic Jews and Old Order Amish have in common is the fact that they tend to be wary and closed off to outsiders. It's very unlikely that a stranger would be allowed in, let alone stumble blindly in, to places or situations where these languages are spoken. If we are trying to reduce this article's excessive length and detail, it seems like a no-brainer that we would cut out this utterly extraneous information.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC) I
Andre makes a good argument for shifting information on regional languages down the line. Maybe this article should cover English, and the widely used languages/dialects, i.e., Spanish snd AAVE, and the other, regional language can be covered by a line like, "you may encounter other languages in some regions, like Hawaiian, French, American Indian languages, Yiddish, and Pennsylvania Dutch. These languages are discussed in regional or local articles." Ground Zero (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
You've got a point there. I just thought that if we mention Pennsylvania Dutch, we should mention Yiddish, but if you want to remove both, I'd say go for it. I'm not sure about the Old Order Amish, but from experience, most of the Yiddish-speaking Chasidic Jews I have encountered in New York City know how to speak English as well. And speaking of which, maybe we should have a discussion about mentioning French as well. Of course, I am aware that you can find Francophone communities in Louisiana and New England, and that there used to be a Francophone community in Missouri, but at least in places like New York, Chicago and San Francisco, the only Francophone Americans I've encountered are those whose parents came from France, as well as one guy who grew up in Louisiana, but that's it. If you spoke Spanish in a major American city, chances are you would find someone who can help you out but the same can't be said of French. But then again, French is most certainly historically significant since much of the US was once under French rule. The dog2 (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Just leaving this here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Get around#By car[edit]

Since most people have said that the article needs to be trimmed down, perhaps the "By car" under "Get around" can be trimmed down further since much of that information is already featured in Driving in the United States. We have already included a link to the article, so perhaps we should just leave the most important points in the main article (eg. legal issues that foreigners might not be familiar with), while those who want to get into the details about US driving culture can just go to the separate article on that subject. The dog2 (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Compare Europe#By car which has been extracted to Driving in Europe, and stripped down to the essentials in the original article. /Yvwv (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Great American road trip"[edit]

So the section on the aforementioned topic has been previously excised from the article but more recently reinstated - what should we do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It was an admirable impulse, slightly overzealously applied. The Great American Road Trip section seems a bit fluffy on the surface but I think it's possibly the most important bit of fluff in the entire article. Powers (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't both those who think cars are the epitome of freedom and who still hold a romantic notion of the road trip and those that don't be better served if that were its own travel topic? Surely there's enough meat there to make one, right? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Certainly, and I believe it is, but the existence of a travel topic does not (and absolutely should not) preclude a summary of the topic in the "parent" article. Powers (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but said summary should be short and concise, right? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I suppose, but those are relative terms. And we shouldn't sacrifice tone. Powers (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Visa Waiver for UK people[edit]

So what does this edit mean? Does that imply that people from Northern Ireland are not eligible? Or does that mean that whatever those weird "right of abode" contortions the UK goes through to give people on certain islands they never could let go off "kind of citizenship"? So does it in essence mean that someone from the Falkland Islands would need a visa? I am exceedingly confused... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It means that people who are citizens of British Overseas Territories are not eligible, so someone from the Falkland Islands or the British Virgin Islands will need a visa. People from Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands have separate visa-free arrangements from the VWP, which in the latter two cases are only applicable under limited conditions. People from Northern Ireland, Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man are eligible. The dog2 (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Can the wording in the article be clarified accordingly? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Would using American Indian and Yiddish phrases be regarded at patronizing?[edit]

Usually I am against being overly sensitive in the 'Respect' section, but this was added to 'Talk' about Hawaiian, French, American Indian languages, Yiddish, and Pennsylvania Dutch:

"Speakers of these languages are generally able to speak English as well, but are usually happy when visitors make an attempt to say a few words in their respective languages."

Frankly I would imagine attempting to do this would be often regarded as extremely patronizing to the recipients, and they may well take offence. Perhaps occasionally this would be mildly appreciated, but I believe there is a real danger in offending people here. Do any Americans here have an opinion on this? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I really have no idea and doubt there's a universal truth on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure doing this in the UK would elicit a negative reaction. Doing so in Australia conversely would probably be appreciated. Perhaps in the US this is not so clear cut, but I would recommend removing this advice. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
To me, it just sounds odd. Why would you speak Pennsylvania Dutch? Even in the Pennsylvania article, without saying it, it basically says that the language is dead and that it is essentially just something people dabble in for heritage education. Using Pennsylvania Dutch in Pennsylvania would not offend people, but it's basically just pretending your German. It just seems strange to me. Yiddish also seems more like trivia. It's not even mentioned in the NYC article.
"Native American languages" is a lot lumped together. Some are essentially dead and many would serve no purpose to the traveler, but I don't think it would be "offensive" to speak someone's local language if you were speaking the language of that tribe and there was evidence that they actually speak it themselves. With that said, though, you really have to seek Native American language education if you want to learn it and are not already living in that culture. If you have enough interest that you are bothering to learn any of the languages at all then through your teacher and studies, you probably already know more about the topic than Wikivoyage could say...
I guess what I'm trying to say is the description of the speakers as GENERALLY able to speak English well seems like a huge understatement. They're almost certainly going to know English and it's extremely unlikely that you'd ever find yourself in a group where no one speaks English but they DO speak any of those other languages. Even if they know one of those languages, there's probably a near zero chance that they'd use one with a tourist over English so you probably wouldn't even know that they knew it. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems like a minefield for Yiddish or Indian languages, while I could see it being appreciated in the spirit indicated in Hawaii or Francophone areas. Powers (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
It's unnecessary at best, misleading at worst, and adds length to an already overly lengthy article. Three strikes. Let's delete it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that is enough consensus to remove. Thanks. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


With regard to the point about Latinos in the "Respect" section, I'll just point out that there are Latinos who get offended if you try to speak to them in Spanish, because you are supposedly assuming that they are unable to speak English. The only time you can be more or less sure that it won't be offensive is if you are not competent in English, and therefore approach someone in Spanish out of necessity. I know this sounds over sensitive to many foreigners, but right now, there is a huge craze about microaggressions among left-wing Americans, so even approaching a Latino in Spanish can sometimes be construed as a microaggression, as you are supposedly assuming the person is not American. The dog2 (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not the point. There are people who self-identify as Latino and who have Latino ancestry who don't speak Spanish. Plus some people consider Brazilians to be "Latino" (though ymmv on that one). Plus, spicy food (which was previously mentioned) is actually not a thing in many Latin American countries, so assuming all Latinos eat spicy food is a bit like assuming all Europeans eat Sauerkraut or all Americans eat Barbecue. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Are we really going to advise people on what foods people can eat, offer or talk about around certain races? That whole paragraph should be deleted. It feeds into that "left-wing microagression craze" mentioned. Advising travelers about when to have conversations about watermelon is kind of ridiculous, don't you think? How often do we imagine travelers approaching strangers about watermelons? If we follow the "microaggression" cult, the most succinct and "useful" advice would be "only talk to and ask questions to white people" because of all the traps they place around speech towards non-whites. Those people are not the norm. Can we trust that non-whites can have mundane conversations about food without international incident and just delete the paragraph? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I think this absolutely has to stay in some form. Sure, watermelon is something you typically won't bring up in conversation, and you would just go to the nearest supermarket to buy, but fried chicken is something that could. What if you are a new expatriate in the US and ask your black colleague to recommend a place for fried chicken? Of course, from the expatriate's perspective, it is simply the case that the person he asked for the recommendation happened to be black. But the black colleague would get very offended because from his perspective, the other person is stereotyping and asking him because he's black. As I previously mentioned, I had no idea that the stereotype about black people and fried chicken even existed before I lived in the US, and many foreigners don't either, so this absolutely has to be mentioned.
For the record, this "microagression" narrative is actually becoming the mainstream in prestigious American universities, and many travellers go to the US to study in them. In NYU, it is taboo to say "Merry Christmas" if you are not sure that the person is a Christian, especially if the person is Jewish, as it is supposedly being disrespectful to people's religious beliefs. In UC Berkeley, it is taboo to ask people where they're from unless you specifically ask which part of the US they are from because you are supposedly assuming that non-white Americans are not American. I agree that this over sensitivity is absurd, but this article is not about what I feel, but what is likely to offend Americans that foreigners might not be aware of. The dog2 (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we should not bow to the rightist sensibilities in calling out that the Civil War was about slavery or that "Happy Holidays" is a perfectly positive thing to say and if you're offended by it, you're an idiot. But that's not the point here, is it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll try not to get dragged into a political debate here since this article should be about the current situation on the ground, and not about promoting one political view over another be it right-wing, left-wing or whatever. But the fact of the matter is, you are unlikely to offend someone with "Happy Holidays" unless you are talking to a right-wing extremist. The dog2 (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
No one suggested removing talk of slavery from the article and I don't see this as an attempt to "bow to rightist sensibilities". I simply don't think we can realistically make a shopping list of all the foods that are deemed offensive to mention around each race nor do I see it as pertinent enough to the traveler to warrant the insertion. How bad would we expect things to be for a traveler who made the "mistake" of asking a black man how to get to the [insert popular chicken restaurant/food chain]?
While I see the point about universities, university culture seems a bit of a different (and complex) topic and one that is likely out-of-scope. Even though it seems there is a lot of hypersensitivity there, I think even among those who might get offended, they would react differently if it were a foreigner. Am I underestimating these things? Would people really become violent or aggressive enough just hearing "fried chicken" or something in a sentence directed at them to warrant the mention on a page that is already so lofty? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm so tempted to point out that this article is supposedly an overview and we have fast food in the United States and Canada to discuss [[Chicken]. Trying to cover everything here is creating a very bloated page. K7L (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course everyone know's that KFC and Popeye's are American fast food chains, and that is mentioned in the "Eat" section. But the important thing to mention in the "Respect" section is that due to history of being caricatured doing so, it is very offensive to ask a black person where to get fried chicken. In many American universities and corporations, you could be subject to disciplinary action, or even expelled for bigotry if you do so, even though you cannot be arrested and thrown in jail. Similarly, if Latinos consider it offensive to be approached in Spanish instead of English, this should be mentioned. The dog2 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The dog2, you've got to disabuse yourself of the idea that U.S. university culture is anything even remotely like a microcosm of U.S. culture as a whole. I'd wager that most Americans - even many who lean left but don't spend much time on college campuses, like myself - have very little use for it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I still think the paragraph should not be deleted, as the issue about black people and fried chicken could potentially cause major offence even beyond university campuses. But I'm willing to concede that perhaps general American culture is not as sensitive as American university culture.
I guess this strikes a bit of a chord with me because the level of sensitivity and political correctness I have seen in Americans was a bit of a shock when I first moved to the US. Even coming from Singapore, where we have very strict laws against racism, I have seen Americans cry out racism and bigotry over things that would be considered non-issues by the ethnic minorities in Singapore. The dog2 (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
And just to make it clear where I stand on this, I am not trying to paint the US in a bad light, and neither am I trying to use WV to promote any particular political view. I simply think that if there is something that Americans are particularly sensitive about compared to people of other countries that could cause serious offence, this is something we need to inform travellers about so they don't commit a major faux pas. But aside from that, I am happy to have a discussion on what constitutes a major faux pas in American culture since everyone will have different perspectives based on their specific experiences. The dog2 (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

(indent) So are we moving towards consensus on deleting the paragraph? The dog2, I think it's clear you're motivated by your experiences and not political agenda. These days, every opinion is being politicized in the US. Makes conversations unnecessarily difficult. If we delete the paragraph, do people think it would be worthwhile to replace it with a line that University students have become hypersensitive towards race far beyond that of the rest of society (or something like that) or just leave it alone? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think the paragraph should be deleted outright, but I would certainly be in favor of toning it down a good bit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I also don't think it should be deleted. Perhaps Andre can suggest a way for it to be toned down, but it is somewhat true that some things that Americans know are offensive to blacks and Latinos are not that obvious to foreigners, and the Respect section is meant to inform foreigners about potential faux pas they might not be aware of. But perhaps a separate bullet point that university and liberal arts college students tend to be exceptionally sensitive could be useful. Then again, the political correctness doesn't just boil down to race. Other things such as women's issues, gender identity and sexual orientation also tend to get really hyped up. The dog2 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
So if there is some consensus to keep it, my question is: How exactly do we make it helpful to the traveler? Right now the statement about "racist tropes" and "historical caricatures" stands rather ominously over the one outlined example, as a warning about potentially numerous but completely unintuitive "offenses" that will get you labeled a "racist" (a hefty accusation although it's losing weight with the university 'redefinition' spilling out into and becoming known by the greater society...). I really hate the idea of advising travelers to "tread lightly" when speaking to non-whites, but it IS essentially what this is about and how Americans themselves are taught to function, and I don't see the purpose in bringing it up if we don't have advice, because it can sound like an unspoken warning that there's no way to avoid being called a racist in America. And I want to be clear that I'm not suggesting anyone is trying to make it that way. I just think it's lacking in how helpful it is to the traveler/advice on how to avoid it or what to do about it and the answers to that are also not easy to sum up...
I will drop the university talk here in order to keep this discussion focused, but if someone thinks it should be here, feel free to start another thread. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. Personally I think it's OK the way it looks. I may be overestimating Americans' sensitivity to racial issues since I work at a university where people are exceptionally sensitive even by American standards, but I do think it's somewhat true that as a general rule, Americans are more sensitive than non-Americans towards issues like these. Just to highlight the point, Nintendo had to change the design of a Pokemon (Jynx, if you are wondering which one it is) for the American market because it offended the black community.
AndreCarrotflower suggested toning down the paragraph, so what's your suggestion? The dog2 (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
As I said, if we're going to mention this, I think there should be advice on how to avoid it and/or how to deal with it. We've essentially stated, "Avoid historical racist tropes and stereotypes that you are definitely unaware of or strangers will call you a racist". It's a little foreboding and in my opinion, not helpful to just throw it out there like that. The Mexican part is also redundant as the point right above already specifies "Latino and Hispanic" as the accepted terms. We don't need special warnings about "Calling non-Mexicans Mexican", "Calling non-Chinese Chinese", etc ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been very busy lately, and also the never terribly reliable Internet access at my apartment has been even less so this week. For some reason, I seem to remember the section at issue being longer and more detailed than it currently is - perhaps it's one of those things that have been cut down as part of the overall effort to shorten this article. In any event, I'm okay with how it reads now and I guess I can retract what I said earlier about toning it down. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
And just to add in a point, I don't think Americans will cut you any slack if you are a foreigner. Most Americans never travel abroad and have very little exposure to foreign cultures, so as a general rule, you are expected to know about American cultural sensitivities the moment you step off the plane onto US soil. Newly-arrived Indian expatriates have been known to be fired from their jobs for displaying a swastika (which is purely a religious symbol with no anti-Semitic connotations in India and much of Asia) because it offended their American colleagues, so I can assure you ignorance will not be accepted an excuse. It's not possible to list every possible offence, but I think it is imperative that potential visitors to the US need to read up about American cultural sensitivities and be aware of them before they arrive so they do not offend people. The dog2 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect (and respect meaning respect, not overt sensitivity), we seem to keep coming back to this attempt to distill the nuances of political correctness in America into a 'respect' section that it suitable for all and it is not possible.
This is not a guide (as stated many times before) to avoid the terrible crime of possibly potentially offending someone by saying something that could maybe be construed as an opaque cultural reference. I would really ask certain individuals here to stop fixating on offending people and consider more about how to advise travelers to behave as decently behaved visitors in the larger context of United States culture, and not make a laundry list of every possible offence that could occur. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
That is why I suggested deleting this paragraph. It's a broad statement about unknown "traps" with no solution or advice for the traveler. And now I see an anonymous user has added onto what I stated was a redundant point about using "Latino" and not "Mexican" by actually inserting my own "Asian" not "Chinese" example into the article. We already stated just above what the acceptable racial terminology is, and now we're restating it but in "This not That" format.
We also already have a Swastika warning, and it makes sense that if you are WORKING in a country, your employer is going to be less sympathetic towards your background when you represent the company, but travelers don't need to be worried about how to be successful in corporate America. This section is not about maintaining employment. For the traveler, while it may be extremely unpleasant to be accused of being a "racist (expletive)" just for treating a non-white like a human (re: asking a person of the "wrong race" for directions to a fried chicken joint), it's highly unlikely you'll get into any serious problems. You're not going to be jailed or deported or anything. And again, I still don't see most of these situations even arising for a tourist. I think the addition of the "Asian not Chinese" edit is added reason to consider deleting the paragraph as it's only going to continue to attract these annoying edits with little benefit as far as I see it. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the statement about fried chicken and African-Americans should stay, but if you insist, we can remove the sentence about calling Latinos Mexican. As I said, while it's not possible to create a laundry list of offensive tropes for this article, the trope about black people and fried chicken is perhaps the most offensive of the tropes tourists could stumble upon out of ignorance. If you're an international student at a prestigious university, you could be expelled for asking a black person where to get fried chicken, so it can have major repercussions even if you can't be arrested. As for other things, it's not possible to cover everything, but I think some form of warning is warranted so visitors know they have to read up on American cultural sensitivities before making a trip to the US. The dog2 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Well there was a wording in there somewhere in the edit history, that said that not all Latin@s speak Spanish and eat spicy food. In part because some Brazilians see themselves as Latin@s, too and in part because a person named O'Bryan won't necessarily speak Gaelic just like a person named Lopez won't necessarily speak Spanish... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"If you're an international student at a prestigious university, you could be expelled for asking a black person where to get fried chicken" - The dog2 - false statements such as this do not give me confidence that you have the right advice or understanding for the 'respect' section. Whilst racist behavior can (and should) result in repercussions, I find it hard to believe that any student in the US was ever expelled for asking about fried checkin. If you can point to a news story that backs up your statement I would reconsider. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's bizarre. Also, Brazilians, at least in my experience, consider themselves Luso-American, not Latin-American, but when we're talking about those kinds of small details, we're already way too far into the weeds for our own good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it's time to leave well enough alone here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I guess I may have extrapolated a bit there, but there are definitely cases of people who have been suspended from universities for displaying religious Swastikas. There was recently an incident like that at Georgetown University. Unfortunately, I don't have news articles on this, but I definitely know of foreigners who were subject to disciplinary action and sent for mandatory counselling and courses on racism for asking a black person about fried chicken. I can assure you that something like this is taken very seriously and considered to be racism by Americans. But anyway, I agree with Andre that the paragraph looks fine, and we should leave it as it is. The dog2 (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Asking for fried chicken and displaying a swastika is not equivalent at all. I would ask that any claim made here in future is backed up by some actual evidence in order to avoid this type of uncomfortable discussion. Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the redundant Mexican/Latino comment, but it seems the result here is to keep the content, so I think we can close this discussion. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Not to restart the discussion, but just putting this here. Oh, and this. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


I can't believe I have to say this and make a big discussion out of it, but we absolutely should not be replacing correct typography with incorrect.

It's one thing to type hyphens instead of dashes. No one has a problem with that, and it will be fixed before being promoted to Star. But to actually remove dashes in favor of hyphens when dashes are unambiguously the correct character to use... and to do so again after being reverted is absolutely ridiculous.

If you don't care about proper typography, fine. No one's going to make you. But don't impose improper typography over the objections of those of us who do care!

-- Powers (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely, and I also don't understand the edit summary. User:AndreCarrotflower, if you think we shouldn't worry about "insufferable hair-splitting" and "nitpicky points of style", then why are you editing pages purely to change these details of punctuation? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Also agree. En dashes for ranges are specifically called out at WV:TDF (although it says to "consider" using them). They are standard formatting in written English, and although the tone is more casual on WV, we still follow all other English rules of grammar and formatting. (We don't omit correct capitalization or spelling on the basis of "this isn't WP".) Also, the argument that "dashes are harder to type" is flawed in no fewer than five ways. One, they're not that hard. Two, there's a quicklink below the edit box to insert one, right above all the currency symbols. Three, if that doesn't satisfy you, you can write &ndash; instead of inserting a dash. Four, no one was editing that text often enough to be bothered by the dashes. Five, if someone was editing it (such as adding a new item to the list), there were already dashes right there that you could copy-paste. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it was a bit much for me to proactively edit the preexisting dashes, but I stand by my edit summary and have to pointedly disagree with many of Bigpeteb's comments above.
First, while the fact that Wikivoyage's tone is informal is a big part of why I feel we ought to depart from the persnickety adherence to antiquated style guides that rules the day at Wikipedia, I reject the comparison between the dashes-vs.-hyphens issue and "[in]correct capitalization or spelling" - I'd go so far as to say a better analogy might be dashes : hyphens :: "thee" or "thou" : "you". In point of fact, hyphens have all but replaced dashes in virtually all informal writing and indeed in a good chunk of formal writing, especially in contexts such as "$5-10" and "9AM-5PM", to the point where it's an open question whether such use of hyphens can any longer be considered "incorrect typography", de facto.
Secondly: hand in hand with the principle of informal tone, I think, comes that of user-friendliness for our editors, especially newbies. Bigpeteb says "the argument that 'dashes are harder to type' is flawed in no fewer than five ways" yet proceeds to not name a single way to render a dash that's as easy as rendering a hyphen: neither scrolling down to the bottom of the edit box to find and click on the quicklink, nor the seven keystrokes (including the Shift key) required to type "&ndash;", nor copy-pasting any preexisting dashes that may be nearby, can compare to the simplicity of the single keystroke required to produce a hyphen. For this reason, as well as for the popular-usage reason I mentioned above, in the aggregate of all Wikivoyage articles hyphens currently appear in the vast majority of instances where dashes are "supposed to" go. Now we're always crowing about the virtues of consistency between pages, so why not conform our guidelines to the way in which hyphen usage has for the most part already evolved, and come down on the side of the informal tone the manual of style openly asks us to take, rather than scrupulously hewing to style books that are increasingly irrelevant, disregarded, and antiquated? Especially when the alternative is a literally neverending cleanup process whereby instances of a punctuation mark that's more convenient to use are converted to one that's a pain in the neck to render on a standard keyboard and is employed so infrequently nowadays that it looks wrong and out of place (even to me, who does a good deal more reading than the average person) even in many contexts where it's used "correctly"?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I think you are severely overstating the prevalence of hyphens where dashes should be used in professional typesetting. (Comparing dashes to early Modern English pronouns that haven't been in common use for centuries is just ridiculous.) And, adjacently, I think you are also incorrectly conflating using an informal tone with using informal typography. The two are completely separate topics. Even with our conversational (I would say, rather than "informal") tone, we require reasonably complete sentences, proper punctuation and spelling, and avoid the use of too much slang.
And all of that aside, why you would not only remove correct punctuation in favor of incorrect, and then do so again after being reverted is absolutely gobsmacking to me. If the distinction simply doesn't matter to you then why go to that kind of trouble twice and in direct opposition to one of your fellow editors?
-- Powers (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Andre, I understand the position you're coming from... but I don't agree with it.
Where on WV do we have a policy that editing should be "easy"? Just now I quickly perused the Manual of style, Plunge forward, Welcome newcomers, etc. Yes, we do say that "You don't have to create a perfect, fully-formed article the first time around. ... That's how a wiki works!" But we also follow that with "[Don't make] changes to Wikivoyage style."
I'm not saying editing should be deliberately difficult. It may not be written down anywhere as such, but "editing should be easy" is a nice goal to have. In fact, I have to amend my list of reasons why using a dash isn't hard to add a sixth reason: You don't have to if you don't want to. If someone wants to create content using a hyphen because a dash is too hard to type, that is fine, just like omitting most other formatting is fine. Another editor will come along eventually and change it to use a dash, the same as they might fix numbers and units to be separated by a &nbsp; or other formatting fixes.
But you seem to be taking this to an extreme. Dashes are not the worst thing an editor has to deal with when editing a page on WV. I edit pages about Japan. Sometimes I have to switch my keyboard over to Japanese to enter Japanese text. Then I have to find a source to copy-paste the ā ē ī ō ū characters from, since there's not in the quick edit box and I don't remember the Alt keycode for them. (Good thing I don't edit Chinese, because pinyin requires even more special characters.) By comparison, dashes are much simpler. And this is where I take issue with the goal of "editing should be easy", because it all hinges on the definition of "easy". You've opined that entering dashes is onerous. I opine that it's not, and that dealing with other issues of text as well as Mediawiki syntax and some templates we use is much harder. What happens when our definitions of "easy" conflict?
But this is all a distraction from the real argument. WV's current policy is that we should use them, although they're not mandatory. If you dislike that policy, then you need to bring it up on WV:TDF or another appropriate page and gain consensus from other editors to change the policy. Only then would it be appropriate to edit this page or any other page to remove dashes. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I must say I'm a bit taken aback by the negative reaction here, given that back in 2013 we had a drive-by editor come in from Wikipedia and move Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex (with a hyphen) to Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex (with an en dash), sparking a discussion in the pub where the almost unanimous consensus (the infamous Tony was the only dissenting voice) was in favor of reverting the move and many of the same arguments I made above (about actual everyday usage heavily favoring hyphens over dashes; about dashes being pains in the ass to render on keyboards and therefore not worth the trouble) were advanced. I thought my actions in reverting the en dashes above were in keeping with the precedent set there.
Another argument that was made in the 2013 discussion with which I agree, and which also informed the edits at issue here, but which I didn't think to verbalize, is that the scrupulous use of dashes rather than hyphens in this context comes off as pretentious and show-offy - personally, they strike me in much the same way as when you read the New Yorker and see extraneous umlauts used in words like "coöperate", "preëxisting", and the like. It's probably true that I'm more apt than most people to let that kind of thing get under my skin (hence my snippy edit summaries), but by the same token I doubt I'm the only one to feel put off by that. And I think that's something else that's very much out of step with the informal, conversational tone we try to strike here.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Article titling is a different issue from prose, as it presents different challenges and conventions. Plus, with improvements to search and changes to the way redirects are handled, the outcome of that discussion might be different today. As regards pretension, I'd like to think the majority of readers don't consciously notice the use of dashes over hyphens where appropriate, and using each where each is called for presents distinct advantages for readability and reduces ambiguity. Powers (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Not even an edit summary? Everyone but you has argued for en-dashes in this discussion, AndreCarrotflower. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Granger, that was entirely unintentional. The layout of the Recent Changes page, the dimensions of the screen on my mobile phone, and the fatness of my thumbs all combine to make it very easy to inadvertently click on "rollback" when editing on mobile using desktop view. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! I should have guessed it was something like that... —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Amusement parks[edit]

Do we have any basis for the claim that "amusement parks" are a US invention? They appear to have evolved from fairgrounds and public gardens which existed in Europe for centuries, and the introduction of rides such as Ferris wheels took place on both sides of the Atlantic at approximately the same time (late 1800's, once motors were available to run these). A case for "theme parks" as an Americanism would be reasonable to make, but that's a different animal. K7L (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess the term "modern" refers to a permanent amusement park located within an enclosed area with all the rides operated by the same company. If I'm not mistaken, in that regard, the first one was built at Coney Island. The dog2 (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Blackpool Pleasure Beach opened in England just a year after Coney Island's first admission-controlled park. And Europe's pleasure gardens and trolley parks on both continents were adding rides well before the 1890s. It's a difficult thing to nail down. Powers (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
If you think there is a more appropriate way to write the introduction to that section, go ahead, but I think Coney Island needs to be mentioned as it is historically significant as far as amusement parks go. The section is most certainly relevant as many foreigners visit the US for its theme parks. In fact, I made my very visit to the US so I could go to Disneyland. The dog2 (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we just leave the Respect section alone?[edit]

Despite the long discussion above being closed only a few days ago, with some extremely dubious opinions being thrown around very casually, I believed there was consensus to let this topic go and move on. I keep saying that Wikivoyage is a travel guide and not a place to tell people how you think they should behave, but only a few days later there have been more edits that are not travel related.

Therefore can we please just leave this section alone, and at least raise any future content in the Talk page first? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Amen, brother! Ground Zero (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Heartily agreed. Enough is enough. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
That edit seemed OK to me, though. No? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Verbatim : "Gender is also a sensitive issue and best avoided as a conversation topic with people you don't know well." - what exactly is useful about this insight, and what on earth would I do with it? I work in an American corporate environment, and I know how important gender equality is to my industry. This statement however is just another example of a laundry list Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you're right. And if it's not clear, that's a very good reason to delete the statement. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This was one of my concerns about leaving the " don't talk about X food around X race" stuff in the closed conversation; it's likely to signal to others to add to it, and here we are minutes later... The gender thing seems obvious. Approaching strangers with antagonizing comments about men/women is not a great idea anywhere. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The point I was trying to get at is that you can't make jokes about gender differences in the U.S. In most other countries it's fine as long as you don't go overboard, but in the U.S., the feminist community is much more vocal and prominent, making this a very sensitive issue and very easy for you to be labelled a misogynist, so it's best to just avoid such jokes altogether.
Of course, left-wing circles insist that men and women only differ in the sex organs, and all other perceived differences are purely social constructs and stereotypes, while right-wing circles insist that men and women were assigned different gender roles by God and should stick strictly to these pre-defined gender roles as doing otherwise would be disobeying God. As you can see, this is a highly polarised and sensitive topic that should be avoided if you don't know someone's political leanings. The dog2 (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
If only a fraction of the energy that is expended here were instead invested in the region and state articles of the US, a lot could be gained. I mean surely, many that partake in these discussions and make these edits know enough about some part of the US to work on those respective articles, right? And in addition to that, maybe it is time for semi-protection or something? Because driveby IPs do have a tendency to stir debate. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know there is no way to protect a single subheading from edits and the edit highlighted above was from a fairly long-time editor, so it wouldn't have done anything in this case.
For what it's worth, I think most Americans actually do separate politics from science and biology and acknowledge that there are biological and scientific explanations for many differences between men and women while also acknowledging that culture plays a role. And many adults and parents still talk about, acknowledge, and joke about gender differences in the US. I think the college campus experience is again giving you a skewed image of how prevalent certain views are, since the "biology is fake, everything is a social construct" circle is mainly youth and their professors.
As I see that the paragraph itself was not just added and that it was just altered/bolded, I won't call for its deletion, but if the section continues to attract these sorts of edits, I think we may have to reconsider deleting these points OR consider presenting them differently if it's possible to do so in a way that doesn't encourage further additions. Maybe it's not possible though. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The "respect" section is far from the only one that sees incredible amounts of debate or back and forth over extremely minor variations in spelling or wording or style or whatnot. And could you please stop with your implicit derision of people on US college campuses? We all know now what your opinion of them is, please stop inserting it in the conversation at every opportunity. Sorry for being blunt. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I didn't want to get into a negative discussion around people's motivations. We all have different views on respectful behavior, but with regards to a travel guide I believe that we cover the headline items appropriately in the Respect section as it stands.
We already agreed to leave the 'Talk' section alone on a similar basis.
If anyone wants to add more content to the Respect section, please create a new topic on this Talk page first and try and achieve consensus. Thanks. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm a left-winger (social democrat - think Bernie as a presidential candidate, but actually more radical) and the feminist son of a committed participant in the Women's Liberation Movement, and The dog2, if you're really representing people's opinions accurately by saying "left-wing circles insist that men and women only differ in the sex organs, and all other perceived differences are purely social constructs and stereotypes", you are dealing with different left-wing circles than I have ever dealt with and, frankly, you are dealing with weirdos. And most Americans certainly are not members of some fact-denying lunatic fringe on the left. Instead, we have a lot of trouble with people on the right who deny all sorts of facts (global warming, anyone?) because they accept lying propaganda from right-wing media as Gospel. And really, none of that needs to be covered in a travel guide. At this point, and with no personal disrespect to you, I support deleting the warning about discussing gender, and I'd ask everyone to please focus on the traveller, not what a vanishingly small number of weirdos might be offended by. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
As one of Ikan's fellow social-democrats-left-of-Bernie-Sanders with no connection to university campus life, his words reflect my feelings almost verbatim. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
As a moderate left-winger, and as someone committed to progressive values and equality for all races, genders and LGBT people, I concur fully with Andre and Ikan. There are plenty of places to express one's esoteric views on the Internet (have you tried Twitter?), and nobody should use Wikivoyage as a channel to express them. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I have been called a misogynist for having the audacity to suggest that differences in behavioural patterns between men and women can be explained in part by biological differences. I'm not some right-wing lunatic who thinks that stereotypes and societal pressures don't play a role at all, and I most certainly support equal opportunities for women and think we can improve on that in some respects. And for the record, I have always accorded my female colleagues the same amount of respect that I have accorded my male colleagues. But as a scientist, I find it hard to believe that biology doesn't play at least some role in determining sex-specific behaviour in humans, especially since sex-specific behavioural patterns have been observed in virtually every other species of animal known to mankind. Views like the one quoted by Ikan Kekek from my previous post are what I have actually heard from some people in the feminist movement, so I can assure you I'm not making this up. But I'll concede that I don't know how mainstream or fringe that particular ideology is within the feminist movement.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the "Respect" section is meant to inform visitors about potential faux pas that they may not be aware of so they don't offend people at their destination. For instance, an American visiting Myanmar will need to be told that he has to take off his shoes whenever he enters a Buddhist temple, as not doing so is very offensive to the Burmese, and that's what the respect section is for. I won't mind toning it down, and perhaps we can more specifically mention that jokes about gender differences are an absolute no-go in the US, as Americans consider this to be misogyny. The dog2 (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
And yet, stand-up comedians continue to make their livings telling jokes about just those things. I think your absolutist view of this is more reflective of your own perspective than of broader American society. Ground Zero (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps working in a university may have coloured my views somewhat about how sensitive people are. But anyway, I have the experience of being fresh off the boat and making mistakes navigating the nuances of American cultural sensitivities, and what I really hope to do here is to provide potential future travellers to the US with the relevant information so they don't make the same mistakes I did. Honestly, the level of political correctness and sensitivity was a bit of a shock to me when I first moved here. The dog2 (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, the fact that you were recently "fresh off the boat" and yet are now trying to school lifelong Americans about their own culture is precisely the problem here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Dog, I taught at universities for over 20 years (most recently in 2014) and didn't encounter views like the ones you are coming up against. I think they're more prevalent among particularly extremist folks in the Modern Language Association and such. Please consider how unusual it would be for a visitor to deal with such views without themselves being a scholar who we would hope would have the courage of their convictions. And I have to wonder whether you might not want to consider transferring to a school with more reasonable students (and faculty?). I'd like to know where you go to school, but that's really none of my freakin business. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The dog2 - I do actually welcome you continuing to edit Wikivoyage on travel related subjects. It would nevertheless actually help everyone here if you were to stop editing the respect sections for a while. It should be obvious there is a rather sizeable gap between your views about respect and, well everyone else who is editing here. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower, just to make it clear, I do not claim to understand American culture better than Americans, and of course I know that I can't credibly claim to do so. Let's just put this in perspective. As an American, you will undoubtedly know best what is offensive to Americans and what is not, and I do not claim to know better than you in this regard. But what you may not notice is that something that is offensive to you is not offensive to a foreigner and vice-versa. That is the perspective I am trying to provide here.
And to Ikan Kekek, I'll take your word for it that that particular view is restricted to far-left extremist circles. Perhaps I was just unlucky to have encountered people who are far-left extremists. Since the consensus has gone against me, I'll accept that and move on with this issue. The dog2 (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

(indent) Wow, was it my comment that inspired everyone to announce political affiliation?? I thought it was clear, but just to clarify, the reason I mentioned the college thing was because The dog2 specifically stated that his views and concerns are stemming from his experiences on a university campus. I did not insert the "youth and professors" comment because of some sort of "anti-university" stance. I'm rather moderate, and I think most Americans are with slight leanings either left or right and in my experience, most people are still willing to consider and adopt ideas from "the left" if they lean right or "the right" if they lean left. While politics certainly can/does get in the way of meaningful discussions and debates, America is not a nation of party-line loyalist ideologues and hopefully it never becomes one. I've studied in the fields where social justice and other ideas that characterize the "far left extremists" described above are taught, and those types definitely existed when I was in university (as well as professors whose personal politics were part of the curriculum), but they were a minority both among my peers (and such professors were also a minority among professors). While they may have grown in number since then, what we have to consider here is the prevalence in society at large and how likely it is that a traveler would get into "trouble" associated with it. If it spills out beyond specific fields of academia and actually permeates society, we can always reopen this discussion (same as any other), but this is a section where it's preferable not to try and be "ahead of the curve"; we want to list very clear and well-established points, and this one just isn't that at the moment. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If those ideologies are still fringe ideologies, I'm happy to leave them out. I'm a moderate who is left-leaning on some issues and right-leaning on other issues, but I have been subject to hostility from some left-wingers at a forum because some of my views don't conform to the far-left SJW (and yes, I do distinguish between moderates who stand up for social justice and SJWs) narrative. But anyway, my stand is that we can leave fringe ideologies out, but the respect section should reflect what is offensive to people that subscribe to mainstream ideologies, even if those mainstream ideologies can seem extreme by the standards of another country. The dog2 (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
A certain proportion of far-left identity-politics ideologues obviously exist in the U.S., as does a certain proportion of far-right, genuine homophobes/misogynists/racists/whatever. But if there is a majority viewpoint, I'd characterize it as 1) moderate and 2) sick to death of the drama coming from both of the extreme ends of that spectrum. Despite the dystopian prognostications you hear from both the alt-right and the "SJW" crowd (a loaded term to be sure, but I'm using it because you did, for want of a better one, and with the same definition) about how the other side is dragging America to perdition, most people here hold men and women to be of equal worth (if different in terms of certain biological specifics), don't consciously harbor racial animus, coexist fine with folks of different sexual orientations and gender orientations, and would really like for their fellow citizens to stop obsessing over the definition of their own identities. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Well it is quite clear - and also mentioned in the article - that political polarization has increased in terms of demographics and geography above all. Back in LBJ's day, there'd be Democrats and Republicans in practically every state, city and county. Nowadays there is quite a handful of places where one party runs unopposed in (almost) all relevant races. And that's actually bizarrely the precise opposite of what's happening (or at least was happening) in Europe over the last few decades. Back in the day a catholic person from a rural area would vote for the CDU/CSU even if they put up a convicted criminal or a cardboard cutout. Likewise a working class person, especially one employed in mining, metalworking, manufacturing or the likes would vote for an SPD corpse over a living breathing candidate of any other party. Nowadays, that certainty is gone. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I would just like to say that I think it's good that we have the perspective of someone who is not native to the U.S. but has experienced the country from the perspective of an outsider. It is indeed true that we might not realize what we don't know about what is taboo and what is not. I can certainly imagine a visitor from a less egalitarian society making misogynistic comments -- possibly half-jokingly -- and being caught off-guard by the response. The question to me is, would that response be so problematic as to merit specifically warning visitors away from such comments? Powers (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Not only is outside perspective good, it should be vital to our Respect section. The issue is that the Respect section has being continually reworked to try and reflect a very 'unique' perspective that appears to stem from anxiety around giving offence under any circumstance at a far left-wing academic campus.
Some travelers will come from countries with more misogyny and racism than the US. It isn't our mission to tell those travelers how to behave, just advise them with regards to areas to act respectfully specific to the US. I believe the section as it stands is fine. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
As I have previously stated, these things I brought up are what I have actually encountered when interacting with Americans. But then again, I don't discount the possibility that the hypersensitivity I encountered could still be a fringe ideology that is only prevalent in certain university campuses but not in general American society, and I believe that is what this discussion is meant to ascertain. These far-left extremist views do seem to be getting more and more prevalent among the "millenial" generation than in older generations, and the media (both mainstream media and social media) can sometimes make it seem like America is divided into far-left extremists and far-right extremists with almost nobody in the middle. But anyway, as I previously said, if we have ascertained from the discussion that this hypersensitivity to gender issues and extreme aversion to jokes about gender differences is still a fringe ideology, then I am happy to leave it out. This may not be the best place to bring my personal feelings in, but I'm also quite sick of the drama between the SJWs and the Alt-right, and for sanity sake I hope that what AndreCarrotflower said about most Americans being moderates who know how to use their common sense is true and remains true for the forseeable future. The dog2 (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Great, hope we can all get back to writing about travel only. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Remember too that the Millennials are hardly the first generation to indulge in strident and perhaps naively idealistic left-wing radicalism in their young adulthood only to collectively turn their back on it later on in life. The Baby Boomers who so vigorously protested America's involvement in Vietnam in the '60s and '70s grew to be among the principal architects of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Really? Certainly the demographics match, but I doubt you'll find much overlap between the two on an individual level. Powers (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


@Andrewssi2, I think I do prefer to title the subsection "LGBT" rather than "Gay and lesbian". As mentioned on LGBT travel#Understand and its talk page, "LGBT" is the most widely used term. (And hey, using it here would only help to strengthen it as the most common term.) It's widespread enough that I think anyone who's looking for that information will recognize it if they see it in the table of contents or scrolling through the page. For anyone who doesn't know it, the first sentence mentions "gay and lesbian", so it gets explained fairly quickly.

Come to think of it, that subsection doesn't currently mention anything about transgender issues. Toilets#Stay safe mentions that laws for bathroom access for transgender people vary by region, and even within the U.S. this varies by state and city. There can also be travel difficulties when someone's outward appearance doesn't match the gender stated on their identification. I think this subsection ought to mention these, even if only to say "it's complicated, do your research". If it does mention those issues, then "LGBT" would certainly be a better section title than "Gay and lesbian". --Bigpeteb (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Forgive me for beating this drum a little more, but seeing as we're trying to reduce the length of this article, it also occurs to me that "LGBT" is several characters shorter than "gay and lesbian". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with Bigpeteb. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The section is about "gay and lesbians" though. Bisexuals only matter here if they're going to be involved in gay or lesbian encounters/activities. Real transgender people want to blend in and live as their "new" gender, so there isn't much advice for them, and if we're going to say "do your research", we're saying we have nothing to say, so the inclusion sounds like it's more for us to be "PC" (even though gay and lesbian is not non-PC) or just extending the "Respect" section nonsense into another category, to be honest. I don't really care that much, because this just seems pointless to me (and it will actually lengthen the article, because you then have to add that line about "do your research" for transgenders).
I am however firmly against the outlined reason "And hey, using it here would only help to strengthen it as the most common term". Why would we want to do that? Using Wikivoyage as a tool for soft activism to push an agenda is not what we're about. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I would make the section "LGBT" and also specifically address trans issues. Wanting to blend in isn't the same as blending in. I have a trans woman friend whose life has been threatened on the street in New York City(!) because of that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The reason I reverted was because an anonymous IP had changed the title section of one our most important articles. If there is consensus to change then that is fine with me. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent about the title, but I do think we should address issues pertaining to transgenders. The safety of travellers is important to our "Stay Safe" section, and that includes people of all gender identities too. But at the same time, let's be careful not to be too sensationalist. While it is appropriate to mention some of the discrimination transgender people may face, I think that at least in liberal areas like New York City or the San Francisco Bay Area, transphobic people are a minority and most people you will meet take a live and let live approach to gender identity, and that should be made clear too. The dog2 (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about this some more, I believe that LGBT as a title will not be well understood by readers from non-English speaking countries. I think that it should remain as 'Gay and Lesbian'. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
What makes you believe that? The term "LGBT" has been borrowed into some other languages—I've encountered it in Spanish, and I've heard that it's used in Turkish and Danish too, among others. If anything, it might be easier for many readers who don't speak much English to understand. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Acronyms are intrinsically more difficult to understand. It may be used a bit more in places such as Spain and Germany, but I think a Chinese/Japanese may be confused. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no blanket term in Chinese or Japanese to refer to LGBT people, and there are only separate words for homosexual and transgender people, so Andrewssi2 has a point there. That being said, I don't think it will be that difficult for a Chinese or Japanese person to do a web search to find out what the term means. The dog2 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I definitely agree on not being sensational or overstating dangers. As for the abbreviation, if we engender to make it clear in context, I think people will get it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Doing a web search to look up the meaning, or gleaning meaning from context, does nothing when we're talking about using a section header to help readers find important information relevant to them. Powers (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
True. If we need people to do web searches on our terms then we have actually failed to convey meaning to the reading. Frankly we should avoid acronyms as much as we can (for any subject). --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
So do you want to write out "Lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender"? If you really are convinced that's needed... Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to put this into perspective against the rest of the world where we almost never have such discussions and nobody is bothered by these things:
There is currently no mention of gay and lesbians at all in: Hungary, Norway, Chile, Burundi, Tanzania, Vietnam, Palau, Fiji, Denmark, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Grenada, Uzbekistan, Lebanon, Cameroon
There is just a single note/line about it in the Respect or Stay Safe section in: Ghana, Ethiopia, Brazil, Spain, India, Estonia, Mauritania, Croatia, Kenya, Bangladesh, Morocco, Bhutan
No subheading but more than one-line about gay and lesbians: Saudi Arabia, Ireland, Singapore, Jamaica
Has a subeading for gay and lesbian: Canada, Germany, Japan, Iran, Italy, Australia, Indonesia, South Korea, Nigeria, China
Out of all of the articles above that I checked, Singapore was the only one with a line about transgender. Nobody with an interest in any of these other countries has ever noticed or cared about this in all the years these articles have been around. I think this conversation is mostly making something out of nothing. We focus a lot more on those "stares" you might get from the "deprived" and rural people in safe and accepting countries than we do on places where real problems can occur for gays and lesbians, and now there is this burgeoning need to add/expand a section about Transgender travel in the US? Seems a bit silly. You could still have a line about "transgender" under the "gay and lesbian" heading if there's anything to say, but it may also be worth noting, we don't really give advice for other mental/psychological conditions. In the LGBT travel article, transgender is only mentioned in the Air Travel section, yet there is an exceptional need to talk about it in the US article? I just don't see it. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow, a "mental/psychological condition" probably know how that comes off. Anyway, thanks for pointing out where conditions for LGBT people have been neglected on Wikivoyage. Meanwhile, I see no-one suggesting a separate section for transgender people, only a mention that problems are possible. If you think that's obvious to everyone and there isn't any country where transgender people are extremely safe in not being attacked, threatened or ill-treated for being transgender, then we shouldn't say a thing. But really, we're just talking about a single sentence at most. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Going back to the question of "gay and lesbian" vs. "LGBT" and the supposed inherent difficulty to understand acronyms: again, this is the English Wikivoyage. Of course, speakers of other languages remain welcome to use and contribute to our community, but I don't think a ten-second Google search is an unreasonably high expectation in this case. The comments I made at pub#Understanding of the word "millennial" apply: "the more we at the English Wikivoyage go down the road of making concessions to readers of limited English proficiency, the more we enable the continued neglect of the other language versions of Wikivoyage". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
One of our stated goals is offline use. A ten-second Google search is an unreasonably high expectation if the voyager isn't currently online. As for "safe and accepting countries"? Take a look at - the Transgender Day of Remembrance site. Many transwomen of colour have ended up very dead in countries like the US and Brazil, which LGBT travel seems to think are relatively safe. That they're better than some Da'esh-occupied Arabian backwater is little consolation. K7L (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding offline use, a little bit of forethought goes a long way. The voyager may not have access to the Internet whilst travelling, but s/he obviously does when printing the article out. And no matter what their native language, it's incumbent on said voyager to read over the article before printing it, to see how useful it is vis-à-vis their travel plans lest they be caught with insufficient information and without Internet access. For non-native English speakers, it's also incumbent on them to accurately assess their own English proficiency level vis-à-vis the content of the article, and to clarify any confusing language for themselves before they go offline. Again, while non-English speakers are welcome to use us, they need to do so with the understanding that English is the language of currency here, just the same as I wouldn't go on fr: or de: and expect them to simplify the terminology they use for the benefit of me as an English speaker. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just to put things in perspective here, I don't deny that there have been violent incidents targeting transgenders solely on the basis of their gender identity. Similarly, violent homophobic attacks have also occurred. But the fact that such incidents have happened doesn't mean it's an epidemic. And also keep in mind that even people who don't approve of transgenders are not necessarily violent against them. So while we should not pretend that every American is accepting of transgender people, let's not blow the issue up more than necessary. The U.S. is no Uganda or Nigeria, and while transgender people may still face some discrimination, there is no law making it illegal to be transgender, and at least in the main tourist areas, the vast majority of people you will meet will not randomly walk up to you and beat you up on the basis of your gender identity. The dog2 (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. We shouldn't overstate dangers; we should merely state them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought the original question was whether 'LGBT' was a better title the 'Gay & Lesbian'? I still don't think it is, but if the consensus is to change then I'm not going to challenge it. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Can we not just state that under the "gay and lesbian" heading? This discussion seems to be that "gay and lesbian" is 100% understood while there may be people, even in some English speaking countries that are unfamiliar with "GLBT", right? So why not just say what you want to say about transgender under that heading. The only proposed information however was to advise transgender people to research it elsewhere.
"Wow, a "mental/psychological condition" probably know how that comes off" - Since Gender Dysphoria is the diagnosable mental disorder that you must have in order to be transgender, it should have come across perfectly fine. Stating facts doesn't imply ill-will or hatred towards the group if that's what you're insinuating. We don't call blind people "blind" because we hate them; we call them blind because it describes their condition. Transgender people are individuals with Gender Dysphoria. It is a mental disorder. No one should take offense to that. There has been a recent surge in people claiming to be "trans" as a sort of "trend" when they're really just experimenting with fashion and those people are making things difficult for real trans people by trivializing and minimizing their condition to being about "self-expression through fashion", but I'm assuming we're not talking about those people. Again, I'm not opposed to adding something about it, but if our advice is to Google it then we're just putting it in here to have the word there, not to give any real insight or advice. If there is a website for trans travelers about safety and travel concerns around the globe, I'd think it best added to the LGBT article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
This is what happens if your idea of "stating facts" is to profile voyagers on the basis of a "mental/psychological condition". Is this person actually suicidal, or are they "experimenting with fashion", and does it matter if they're assured nothing but trouble in any case? K7L (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
You building a strawman? I can't really understand what your point is; just that you're angry... ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I could be wrong, Chubby, but I think the objection is that individuals who have successfully transitioned to a new gender are usually no longer considered to have gender dysphoria. That is, transitioning is seen as a cure, not simply a treatment. Powers (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I will not get into the politics or the terminology because I am not qualified to do so, and neither am I advocating discrimination or demonising such individuals, but I will try to provide the biological perspective here. Yes, transgenders can undergo sex reassignment surgery, but even so you will not be "completely" transformed as you will not assume the full reproductive function of the other sex. Unlike some species of fish, that is still not possible for humans. So from a biological perspective, someone who is biologically of a particular sex, and a transgender who has transitioned to a gender associated with that sex are not exactly the same.
And I know I am digressing here, but as politically incorrect as it sounds to LGBTQQIA rights activists, intersex is essentially a birth defect. It's when the genitals fail to differentiate properly, so you get ambiguous genitals that are somewhere in between male and female. For instance, that particular structure would be too large to be a clitoris but too small to be a penis. Just like you will classify someone with anopthalmia (born without eyes) or amelia (born with missing limbs) as having a birth defect, from a scientific perspective, intersex would also be classified as a birth defect. And just to put it out there, as far as I know, no human has ever been born with full functioning sex organs of both sexes. There's a lot of other medical disorders related to reproductive function and sex-specific differentiation (eg. androgen insensitivity syndrome), but that will take too long so I will not cover them here. The dog2 (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

(Indent) While the link and suggestion that I am advocating for "profiling voyagers" don't seem to match the hypothesis proposed above, the link is unrelated and the profiling accusation is nonsense, so I'm just going to let that go and get back to the discussion. So based on what's been said: -"Gay and lesbian" is easily recognizable by everyone but the acronym (GLBT) may not be understood (on the basis that acronyms are often not known) If it's true that the acronym is not known even by all Native English speakers, then why not keep "Gay and lesbian" and if we have something to say about trans people (which nothing has actually been proposed), just say it there. We can bold it to make it pop out. I don't think it necessarily has to be in the title (and the full acronym "LGBTQQIA" mentioned above isn't even understood by gays and lesbians and is a huge eyesore. Hopefully we don't have to have a discussion about that) ChubbyWimbus (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What I propose to say about the situation for trans people is that while there is increasing acceptance of trans people and identity in the U.S. in general, trans folks, when recognized as such, can at times experience hostility, ranging from demands to use the restroom of the gender others take them for, up to and including threats to their lives and persons, even in cities like New York that would normally be thought of as politically liberal. It would be great if a transgender person could write something quite brief that reflects something of their own experience, but something should be mentioned and it should be truthful without being unduly alarming. And yeah, let's please not use LGBTQQIA! Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder how true some of those statements are though. The bathroom controversy, for instance, is mostly due to the complete subjectivity of who qualifies as "trans". What people are concerned about seems to be non-trans people taking advantage rather than trans people themselves, and that is exacerbated (or the concerns seem validated) by the push by far left youth that "gender is subjective and malleable" (many conflating it with "sex" or even claiming "sex" is also subjective) and something you can both choose and change at your will (these are the sorts of things I was referencing when I said people are making it harder for real trans people). I don't think we can presume that because there is controversy it translates to harassment of trans people or normal men/women who look "suspect". Is there harassment or is it an assumption?
The issue of violence against and murder of trans people happens most often (actually almost exclusively) with trans involved in illegal activities; namely prostitution. On top of that, while LGBT advocates like to throw out "trans people of color" are "disproportionately affected", what they leave out is that "people of color" are also the ones killing them or "disproportionately targeting" them, so the insinuation that race and racism are factors is completely false. The risks of violence (and death) seem to drop significantly outside of black communities and outside of the sex industry.
I feel like some generic "Violence against trans people is rare" followed by something to the effect of keeping it to yourself unless necessary in order to avoid stares, whispers, comments, and questions would probably be as succinct and as truthful as we can get. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
For perspective, the origional question was around the title of this section. Do we really need a discussion around how to handle advice for transexuals? (advice which frankly doesn't seem to be from anyone who would describe themselves as such). Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Chubby, I think you're misrepresenting laws that have been passed, which state that people are required to use the bathroom of their sex as declared at birth. And while I don't know how often trans people have their lives threatened, I assure you, my astrophysicist friend whose life was threatened on the streets of New York is not a sex worker or engaging in illegal activities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't North Carolina the only state that originally passed a bill? And wasn't the transgender part later revoked? Correct me if I'm wrong. I wasn't denying that threats or violence could occur outside of the sex industry or black communities, I said it was lower/less likely. Almost all of the deaths relate to one or both. "Threats" are harder to measure, but I think all trans people know it's wise to be careful who you reveal that information to. The main point of my proposition was that advice is likely to be generic, not that what is said must be what I wrote or that more couldn't be said about safety if we have advice. In response to Andrewssi2, it seems part of the purpose of proposing the acronym in the first place was its inclusion of the "T" in the title. I suppose it did become more focal in the discussion than perhaps it needed to be, and I see your point that we could just finish LGBT versus "Gay and lesbian" thing and end the discussion as it was presented. But where are we with that? I did try twice to say "Why not leave it "Gay and lesbian" while still allowing trans advice. No one opposed, but no one said it sounded okay, either. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I think "LGBT" is a better heading than "Gay and lesbian" either way, but if we include advice for trans people, the heading "Gay and lesbian" certainly won't make sense, and I think "LGBT" is probably the best alternative. I think we should include advice for trans people, and Ikan Kekek's summary above ("while there is increasing acceptance...politically liberal.") looks pretty good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
There has been a trend of adding more and more letters to try to cover more groups. It went from LGBT 10 years ago, to LGBTQ 4 years ago and now LGBTQQIA. Only God knows how much longer it will get before the final term is settled. But anyway, I think we should mention briefly that incidents that Ikan Kekek described could occur, but also not make it seem like the vast majority of Americans are transgender haters. And yes, the fact that acceptance of transgender people is growing in general American society should be mentioned, as should the fact that the legality of transgender people using public toilets of their choice varies by state.
And as a reply to some of the comments by ChubbyWimbus, there are a lot of things that could become aberrant (for lack of a better word) when it comes to sexual differentiation. In the case of androgen insensitivity syndrome that I mentioned above, the person is genetically male but has a female body and has sex organs that are female but not properly formed, and is hence sterile. The far-left crowd is really pushing for such conditions to be considered part of the "normal spectrum" of biological sex, rather than being considered congenital disorders as the scientific and medical community generally regards them to be. It's true that the minority rights groups in universities are pushing the idea that gender has absolutely nothing to do with biology whatsoever, and you will be targeted if you don't agree with that point of view. In the hard sciences, we treat these as medical disorders when we write scientific literature or have scientific discussions, but it's now incredibly difficult to talk about such stuff publicly, so we just avoid it altogether at public forums. The dog2 (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
All we need to know about androgen insensitivity syndrome is its impact on travel. If there's some special reason why Castor Semenya should avoid all travel through this country, we say so, but we're not a general medical textbook. K7L (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
All I'm doing is providing the scientific viewpoint, and used that as an example of conditions related to sex determination. In any case, someone with androgen insensitivity syndrome will pretty much have exactly the same external appearance as a "normal" XX woman, so unless you are a medical professional who is conducting a comprehensive medical examination of the internal genitalia, and follow that up with a genetic test, you won't be able to tell. Therefore, there is certainly no need for special advice for people with androgen insensitivity syndrome, since there is no way you can tell such a person apart from a "normal" woman when you see her in the street. The dog2 (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Whether a condition is considered abnormal or not is a cultural matter to a very large degree. Are people who go into trances and rant and rave crazy? Not if you're a Pentacostalist. Is it abnormal for a man to have a boy lover? It's absolutely abhorrent to me, but it was normal in ancient Greece. But can we please focus on travellers, rather than irrelevant feuds between physical and social scientists? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I support making this section called "Gay, lesbian & Transexual" if that helps conclude this. If "LGBT" is what some people really want, then I won't object even if it is not my preference. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with "Gay, lesbian and transgender", which is the currently favored term on this side of the pond. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I support Ikan's proposal. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
"Transgender" is a broader term than "transsexual", and I agree that it's the term we should use in this article. I would be happy with "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender" or "Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender" as a section header. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy with Andrewssi2's proposal, but I think we should use "transgender" instead of "transsexual". LGBT is fine with me too, so I'll go with what the majority wants on that. The dog2 (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I still think "gay and lesbian" is enough and don't see any issues with including trans advice under that heading. Otherwise I would support LGBT over "gay, lesbian and transgender" which is too long but more importantly for consistency across countries. I think we should try to have some uniformity to make it easier for travelers and "gay and lesbian" or "LGBT" are the most prevalent. Spelling out "transgender" to me suggests we must have something to say about it while the acronym is just an acronym and "gay and lesbian" which are who we are actually offering advice to 99.9% of the time makes the most sense. (as far as the "normality" of these things, heterosexuality is normal for the human species. Culture can affect acceptance, but I don't see it affecting a biological norm. Homosexuals already know it's not the "norm"; the dating pool is very small for them, especially lesbians. But if these things matter somewhere, I don't think it's here.)
Anyway I prefer "gay and lesbian" or "LGBT" over the recent proposal for the reasons I've stated above. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Let's add some advice pertaining to transgenders then. Based on what I've been seeing, I think we can summarise that transgenders may face discrimination, and there is a risk of open hostility from some more conservative sectors of the population. But at the same time, the general trend has been increased acceptance, and as a general rule, anti-transgender violence is not a very common occurrence in the main tourist areas. The dog2 (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I continue to think LGBT is the preferable term, and continue to oppose the English Wikivoyage making concessions to non-native speakers of English that are deleterious to our content. Again, the ultimate goal should be to foster strong Wikivoyage communities across all language versions, not to foster en: as the default option for native and non-native speakers alike. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Native English speakers can be found in many different countries; are we sure that "LGBT" is recognizable in all of them? Powers (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
On one hand, I suppose you're right. Leaving aside native English readers, I imagine a large number of ESL readers also use this article, and just to add one solid data point, I remember being in grad school with a lot of ESL speakers fresh off the boat who didn't know what "LGBT" stood for. On the other hand, most readers who are not LGBT themselves probably have little to no interest in reading that subsection. Those who are LGBT, even if they're ESL, likely have already learned the acronym. If they haven't learned the acronym, we should teach it to them, because the acronym is very common in the U.S. and readers interested in those topics ought to learn it.
I think that only leaves two solutions.
1. Change the subsection title to "LGBT". Readers who don't know the acronym and don't care about LGBT stuff may read a sentence or two, realize what it means, and then skip ahead. (That could be aided by bolding the keywords "gay", "lesbian", and "transgender" when they appear.) Readers who do know the acronym won't have a problem. However, readers who don't know the acronym but are looking for that content won't be able to find it in the table of contents.
2. Leave the subsection with the title "Gay and lesbian". Again, people who aren't interested in that content will skip ahead. For people who are interested, I think it's widely understood that this includes "bisexual", "transgender", and others, so I think it's fine to keep the title short. However, we should add a sentence explaining that "LGBT" (and sometimes other similar acronyms) are commonly used in the U.S.
Between those, I think I now lean towards the second option. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think "Gay and lesbian" is widely understood to include "bisexual" and "transgender". I suppose it could be assumed that information relevant to gay and lesbian people is also relevant to bisexual people, but I certainly wouldn't expect to find information for transgender people under the heading "Gay and lesbian". —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we can bold transgender and give information there when we have it. I think it's well-established for information relevant to transgender to be placed under the "gay" umbrella. I do think that if anyone is particularly interested or knowledgeable about transgender travel, they should really start adding information to the LGBT travel article and if it grows, a specific transgender travel article might make sense and would probably be more helpful. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree, though really I wish we could come up with a better header than either "LGBT" or "Gay and lesbian". It's awkward; feels like a noun is missing. "LGBT travel" or "Considerations for gay and lesbian travellers" (though neither is ideal due to the redundant use of "travel" on a travel guide) or some such would be more consonant. Powers (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Federal holidays and banks[edit]

The current wording in the Holidays section states that banks are required to close on Federal holidays. Is this true? Powers (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Electronics for export[edit]

"TVs don't match the international DVB standard used in other countries. DVDs and Blu-rays are often region-coded. They use the image size and frame rate of the U.S. TV system, though flat screens don't have the compatibility problems that the older, heavier, CRTs (picture tubes) do."

Wait, what? My ATSC TV is flatscreen, but that does nothing to improve its chances of being able to pick up Auntie Beeb on Freeview should I take it to London at tea time. All of the incompatibilities which existed with NTSC vs. PAL still exist with DVB vs. ATSC; the screen itself being flat solves nothing. K7L (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Difference is that these days you can plug a tuner (or NetFlix, AppleTV, whatever) into the DVI port of any flat screen produced over the past 4 years (and quite possibly far longer) and have no issue reading displaying the signal. Older CRT's never had this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
In other words, it doesn't work without a converter box. I see. K7L (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd say it is a pretty massive shift in functionality. Back in the 80's you would need a special convertor to give a bad picture from your NTSC games console to your PAL television. Those days are happily long gone. If you want to buy an awesome Japanese TV then it isn't just junk when you bring it back to the US. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Japan was NTSC, not PAL. It was more US-compatible then than it is now. Some of the channels were on the wrong frequencies but the system was otherwise the same.
Nonetheless, it's not a flatscreen-vs-CRT issue. A 1987-era VGA computer monitor is analogue and CRT-based, but was well-standardised internationally. You probably could find some box which tuned PAL (or Caligou, or whatever) and spit out SVGA, much as there are converter boxes which tune ATSC and spit out HDMI today. Even so, an ATSC TV is no more able to tune DVB-T under its own power than any other random computer monitor. K7L (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe the Japanese NTSC format was the same as the US NTSC format. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Didn't East Germany use a non-compatible format for color TV to the West, so that you could only see Westfernsehen in black and white? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Yup. The UK and West Germany are PAL. East Germany was SECAM, the French system adopted by Russia and much of the Soviet bloc, although not all could afford colour TV as a luxury at the height of the Cold War.
Korea is just as divided (or worse - as the south uses NTSC, not even the frame rate matches the other system). K7L (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is buying a TV in another country and looking forward to dragging it home. Particularly since, due to the geography of the USA, the dragging home part likely involves airplanes. So this issue won't affect travelers. ArticCynda (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Gun Control[edit]

From what I have been hearing, this is a very polarising issue, with left wingers generally feeling that the relatively high incidence of mass shootings is to be blamed on a lack gun control, and right wingers feeling that there is currently too much gun control that is infringing on their second amendment right to bear arms, and that getting rid of gun control will reduce mass shootings as it will allow regular citizens to defend themselves from the perpetrators of such mass shootings. I am not here to have a political debate on the pros and cons of gun control, and WV is most certainly not the place to have such debates. However, I was wondering if perhaps it is worth mentioning in the Respect section that gun control is a very polarising and emotive issue that foreigners should probably avoid getting into a discussion with Americans about. The dog2 (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

If someone travels to another country to lecture people on gun control or any social/political issue, the chances that they will offend people should be obvious. Going to another country and complaining about it or telling people your own country is better is universally detested. I'd say it's a Captain Obvious case. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
That may be somewhat true, but the difference is that gun control laws are much more lenient in the US than in almost any other country, and the issue tends to be more polarising than in other countries. If you come from places like Japan, China, Australia, the UK, Canada or even my native Singapore, there is almost universal support for gun control among the general population, and in all these countries you cannot legally buy a gun without going through a lot of bureaucracy to get a licence. Gun control in the US is for the most part regulated at the state and municipal levels, and in some areas, there are minimal, or sometimes even no licensing requirements for you to be able to buy a gun. The US is pretty much the only country I know of where a significant sector of the population is vehemently opposed to any form of gun control whatsoever, and this group is extremely passionate about defending their constitutional right to bear arms. Visitors to the US may well be caught off guard at how far these people will go to defend this right. The dog2 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with The dog2 on this. US support for free availability of guns, without even requiring licensing or restricting people on the no-fly list for alleged associations with terrorism in their ability to purchase and carry concealed firearms in some states, is obvious to almost no non-Americans. I completely agree that we don't want to delve into the politics of gun ownership in the U.S., but mentioning that firearms are widely available and legal to carry with few restrictions in some parts of the U.S. and that if you, as a visitor to the United States, want to know about local opinions on firearm ownership and use, you are best off asking questions and listening, is good, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I think Ikan has struck the right balance with his comment. Given the tendency in this article to delve into the minutiae of issues that aren't really relevant to the traveller, I think it should be again emphasized that any explanation we offer about guns should be kept brief and should avoid concerning itself too much with the "why" of the matter. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
That too was what I was leaning towards. I provided all these details in my first post just to give a context to this discussion, but for the article itself, I would say that we should just make it known that guns are a very polarising issue and it is best that you just stay neutral and listen to people's opinion without promoting your own so you don't cause any offence. There is no need to go into details regarding the "why". The dog2 (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

(indent) I can see the reason for mentioning open-carry. I don't see a reason though to mention gun ownership as a "polarizing issue" or to advise people on how to discuss it. There are constant conversations here about shortening this article and avoiding giving too much advice on how to have a conversation, and this to me seems to be another step in the wrong direction. At some point we have to trust that the traveler has had social interactions in their life and is capable of having more without self-destructing. If they make mistakes, are daft/stubborn, or just want to be a jerk we shouldn't be so concerned. They'll learn and grow. Saying things like "It's best to ask questions" is a universally good way to find out how people feel about something. It just sounds like we're moving into How to Have a Conversation when we start trying to warn people about any and every topic in which opinions may differ. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I think something should be mentioned is because this is an issue in which the sentiment in the U.S. differs greatly from that of the rest of the developed world. In Singapore and Australia, even the gun owners themselves are generally supportive of all the background checks, licensing requirements and restrictions you have to put up with in order to be allowed to buy and own a gun (And yes, I have actually met Singaporean and Australian gun owners before). In the U.S., the NRA is vehemently opposed to any form of regulation on gun ownership. I know it sounds crazy to foreigners, but even if what is proposed is merely something like banning firearm access to people with a recurring history of violent crime, the pro-gun crowd is vehemently opposed to that because they see it as a violation of their constitutional right to bear arms. How this affects potentially travellers is when perhaps news of a mass shooting breaks while they are visiting the U.S. You might be saying something like, "There should be gun control to criminals like this don't get the chance to shoot people.", and that could potentially be offensive if you meet someone who is pro-gun. The dog2 (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
See, to me this example of how it affects travelers shows that it doesn't. If someone says "There should be gun control [so] criminals like this don't get the chance to shoot people" some people will say "Yeah, I know" and some people will have some retort or possibly bring up criticism against that person's country. That's how things tend to go everywhere when outsiders do that. So what? Foreigner gives opinion. Local expresses disagreement. Regardless of views, if Local is "offended" it will not be because Foreigner supports banning guns or whatever; it will be because Foreigner is a foreigner criticizing Local's country. It's a Captain Obvious case.
Again: If you go to another country and start criticizing it and acting as if YOU know best or better than their entire nation, you might anger some people and they might put you in your place. This is not the "special case" it's being made out to be. If you want to talk about issues you have with a nation's constitution or the way it's interpreted with the locals, Captain Obvious tells us that you are venturing into a "controversial topic". He also tells us that gun ownership is not on the list of "pleasant everyday conversations" in any country. The fact of the matter is, a conscientious traveler isn't going to start spouting off about gun control, "banning firearm access to people with recurring histories of violent crimes", etc. just like they're not going to start commenting about all of the obese people they see or whining about how ugly everyone is. I don't see anything above that suggests this is different from any other criticism of the nation by a foreigner. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
We disagree. And I don't know why you would think foreigners would know that the U.S., uniquely among countries in the world, has a Constitutional provision that's been interpreted to guarantee an individual right to own and carry firearms. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Since openly carrying a weapon is a universally recognized sign that someone has bad intentions (professionals in active function with police aside), travelers are unlikely to have a discussion about this topic with people who may feel sensitive about it because it is obvious to everyone with common sense that interacting with armed individuals is a bad idea. When traveling to Syria, you also shouldn't have to be told to think twice before discussing Sharia with someone who's carrying explosives around his/her waist. So I agree with Ikan Kekek, this doesn't belong in the Respect section. It should however be mentioned elsewhere, so that travelers are aware of the situation and do not call the police immediately whenever they see armed individuals in public. Even experienced travelers who have visited other developing countries before, are unlikely to be aware of this special case. I was quite shocked myself during my first visit to the USA, admittedly I didn't read WV since it didn't exist yet back then! ArticCynda (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, ArticCynda, it sounds like you've still not really grasped the nuances of U.S. gun culture, at least as practiced in more politically conservative areas, despite your earlier visit. No, people openly carrying weapons in a place like Texas or Wyoming doesn't mean your life is in imminent danger and that the police should be called, but quotations like "openly carrying a weapon is a universally recognized sign that someone has bad intentions" and "interacting with armed individuals is a bad idea" makes it sound like you still think saying the wrong thing will necessarily result in a violent reaction from these people. That's emphatically not the case. Whether or not you buy the idea that carrying a gun around at all times is necessary to protect oneself from physical threats (I don't), the fact remains that most folks in the rural U.S. really do only keep their guns around for protection. It's still a bad idea to try to lecture these people about gun control, but only because it's impolite - not because they'll shoot you if you piss them off.
Addressing the two comments above ArticCynda's, I think I agree with ChubbyWimbus more than Ikan Kekek. It's a well-known fact to anyone who even casually follows the news that the U.S. has a disproportionately large population of gun owners, and that the ramifications of that have caused great controversy both within and across the U.S.'s national borders. The particularities of the American Constitution and legal system that allow this to be the case are outside the scope of this site, and anyway irrelevant as far as the traveller is concerned. Captain Obvious says you don't poke hornet nests, regardless of the why's and how's.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point of view, AndreCarrotflower, though it would not be reasonable to expect travelers to grasp the nuances of U.S. gun culture since for most of the rest of the world, there should not even be a nuance about it in the first place. Regardless, my point was that to most travelers, the act of openly carrying a weapon will be interpreted as an act of hostility, regardless if the individual's intentions are malicious or not, simply because weapons are de facto associated with war zones or crime. It is therefore likely that travelers will be more upset by seeing weapons in public than U.S. citizens are by questions about them. Keep in mind that for travelers from developed countries, it will likely be their first real life encounter with a fire arm, since for example in Western Europe, police officers tend to carry their fire arms concealed to avoid upsetting civilians. ArticCynda (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
No one is arguing against mentioning open-carry. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Open carry is mentioned under the “Stay Safe” section. I do think that a Respect section should mention sensitive topics though. Of course, everyone knows that you generally don’t discuss sex, politics and religion, and we don’t have to advise people regarding that, but the fact that gun control is so sensitive and politically charged in the US is not immediately obvious to foreigners. Outside the US, public support for legislation that bans violent criminals from obtaining firearms is almost universal. It’s only in the US where there is significant opposition to such legislation. The dog2 (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"Respect" is where features of local culture that are unusual for people from other nations and might confuse or upset them, or which they might not know not to talk about (etc.) are mentioned. We Americans have to try to put ourselves in the shoes of people from countries like ArticCynda's if we are to write a good "Respect" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
"Outside the US, public support for legislation that bans violent criminals from obtaining firearms is almost universal. It’s only in the US where there is significant opposition to such legislation." - But WHO is going to start a conversation like that and NOT know that they're probing? The very fact that they acknowledge the issue means they know there is not such a clear solution in the US. You are not just going to "accidentally" or "unintentionally" probe people about the availability of guns to convicted felons for mass murder in a country. Who does that? It's like saying "People all over the world agree that child pornography is bad, so what's wrong with probing Japanese people on my trip to Japan about Japan producing and exporting so much of it? I can't fathom how anyone could have an issue with me, because we all know how bad it is." Surely these are Captain Obvious scenarios. There is mention of foreigners "not understanding all the nuances" of the issue over and over above, but they don't NEED to know. Knowing that there is a debate/issue and that it's an ongoing problem in the first place is enough information and as AndreCarrotflower stated, those who even casually pay attention to world news have that awareness. The traveler profile we have to build to make a case for this seems to be an arrogant traveler who wants to bless the natives with his/her knowledge. That traveler is not going to care about our "Respect" section, because respecting the local people/culture is NOT of interest to them. Our Respect section isn't written for that traveler; We're supposed to be writing for travelers who actually care, and travelers who care about not offending Americans are not going to bring up this topic without understanding there is controversy and would certainly approach it with caution if they decided to pursue it. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Let's be a little more forthright about this. There are plenty of times foreign visitors have in my presence brought up how ridiculous it is that it's so easy for murderers to get firearms in this country, and when they bring that up in New York City, they are likely to get unanimous agreement. What part of the country and in what kind of crowd a visitor brings up the topic is something that matters a lot. I don't think the topic is off-limits anywhere. It's just that if a visitor wants to be careful, they should ask open-ended questions and listen. Anyway, I'm impatient with the argument you're making, that visitors are likely to know about mass shootings in the U.S. and therefore would know to avoid broaching the topic. No, if they have any interest in understanding the country they're visiting, they would want to understand more about it. Therefore, they may want to have a conversation about it, and rather than saying the topic is off-limits or ignoring the topic as obvious (which I'm sorry, I find stupefying), we should advise visitors that there is much more support for regulations in cities, and especially in cities on the West Coast and Eastern Seaboard, plus some in the Midwest, and much more support for unfettered access to firearms in rural areas, the South, the Southwest, the Mountain States and much of the Midwest outside of major cities, but in general that it's best to ask questions and listen if they want to learn more about public attitudes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek is spot on. We don't have to go into that level of detail in the article itself, but the fact that gun control is extremely polarising should be mentioned. I've lived mainly in liberal areas, and in these areas, attitudes towards gun control are for the most part the same as in Europe and Australia, where people are required to go through a lot of paperwork and bureaucracy to get a licence to buy a gun. I have also travelled to more rural and conservative areas like Idaho and Utah, and just driving through the countryside you'll see garage sales where people advertise the sale of firearms. Honestly, even though I always knew that the US is rather lax when it comes to firearms legislation, I wasn't expecting it to be that easy for someone to be able to just walk up and buy a gun. And for the record, the Singaporean and Australian gun owners I have met think it is ridiculous how violent criminals can just go to a shop and buy a gun in parts of the US without going through any background checks whatsoever. For many of us non-Americans who are not intimately familiar with American politics, it is very much possible to unintentionally offend a pro-gun American with what we only intend to be a casual remark. The dog2 (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
But how hard would it be to simply not make any remarks, casual or otherwise? The dog2, I get what you're saying about the difference between liberal and conservative parts of the country, and Ikan Kekek, I get what you're saying about travellers who want to learn more about American culture. But I live in a mid-sized city in Upstate New York, an island of blue where nowhere is more than a 45-minute drive from deep-red country, so I have experience with both sides of the political coin, and I can say from personal experience that nine times out of ten, any attempt by a foreign visitor to discuss gun control with a resident of the rural U.S. will end badly. It doesn't matter how gently the topic is broached, how innocently the question is phrased, whether the asker intends to use it as a springboard into an anti-gun lecture or a cultural learning experience - the level of emotion attached to this issue, and the consequent level of resentment among rural dwellers toward folks who hector these people about why they're wrong, is such that it will be received the same way: with suspicion if not hostility. (Not to put too fine a point on it: many of these people have a certain suspicion of foreigners to begin with, and not just the nonwhite ones.) The current section emphasizes the distinction between liberal/urban and conservative/rural regions, which is important, and for the latter advises that visitors not poke the hornet nest rather than instructing them how best to poke the hornet nest, which IMO is the responsible thing to tell people. And I think that's sufficient. As for visitors who want to learn more about the nuances of U.S. gun culture, at least until passions subside a bit they'd be better off finding some other source of information than asking locals. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm actually quite happy with the way it's written now. If we don't tell people how to approach the issue, we should at least tell people that it is a very sensitive topic that is best to avoid. For me coming from a foreigner's perspective, the main concern is that many foreigners will not be aware of how sensitive gun control is in the US, and we should absolutely mention it in the respect section to inform travellers about this. In fact, I have travelled to rural Australia, and met rural Australian farmers who own guns, and even in those instances, the issue is nowhere near as sensitive as in the US, and these people are generally supportive of some form of gun control to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. As you can see, the vehement opposition to even the slightest form of gun control in the rural US is not immediately obvious to a foreigner, even if the foreigner comes from a rural area. I agree that you can avoid making any remarks, but for a foreigner who is not aware of the sensitivity of the issue, it is easy to make such remarks purely out of ignorance. We most certainly need to make a mention of this so people know that this is a topic that is best avoided. The dog2 (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower, I'll defer to your experience. The bullet point on gun control in "Respect" is cogent. I think we probably can all accept this as OK and move on. ChubbyWimbus, are you satisfied that even if you think it's unnecessary, it's brief enough not to be important to remove? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
The explanation seems spot-on, and easily understandable by those unaware of the legal (i.e. constitutional) background of the matter. As a European however I do wonder, is the sensitivity of the issue only limited to guns in particular, or also other weapons like pepper spray for self defense etc? Are defensive weapons covered under different laws? ArticCynda (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
There was a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2010 that overturned a complete ban on the ownership of nunchuks, applying its rulings on the 2nd Amendment, so yes, other weapons can be covered under judicial interpretations of the right to bear arms. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
That being said, the sensitivity is very much focused on guns in particular. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I made my points, they were heard, understood, and discussion has settled. The consensus is clearly that some mention is warranted and with that understanding, the sentence is fairly concise, so I'm okay with it. The "Respect" section seems to have grown and gained more attention in the past year/few months than it ever did in the entire time the site has been running. I'm hoping these social issues/news-of-the-day conversations will relax for a while. Otherwise, we may need to talk about where line should be with issues that are confined to some form of people disagreeing or getting annoyed (as opposed to those that could get you arrested or insight violence). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I know this discussion is settled, but just to reply to your point, my understanding is that things that would jeopardise your personal safety or get you arrested generally go in the "Stay Safe" section. The "Respect" section is about covering aspects of a place's culture that visitors might not be familiar with that could lead them to cause offence to a local. Let's not forget that this is a travel guide, so Captain Obvious rules should be applied from a foreigner's perspective and not from a local's. The dog2 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with ChubbyWimbus. Can't we just quickly list a series of sensitive topics and be done with it, rather than spending a paragraph on each? Powers (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
That could work, but there are some things where detail is necessary. There are things that have absolutely no connection with race whatsoever from a foreigner's perspective, but are considered racist by Americans. The dog2 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah but do we really have to warn people against talking about fried chicken? Americans are smart; they know foreigners might not be aware of racial stereotypes. Powers (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a friend who got into trouble for that when he was fresh off the boat. We all know that the U.S. has good fried chicken, so my friend decided to ask his colleague for a recommendation of a fried chicken joint, and because he was unaware that this racial stereotype even exists, the colleague he asked happened to be black. He was disciplined by the company and made to go for mandatory counselling over that. Of course, I know of more worldly black Americans who understand that a foreigner asking about fried chicken that may not be aware of the stereotype, but there is also a significant number of more insular ones who don't and would get offended. Foreigners need to be told about this because let's face it, not every American you meet is going to have a lot of exposure to foreign cultures.
It's the same deal with the Swastika. As someone who grew up in Asia, I just see it as a Buddhist or Hindu religious symbol and don't associate it with neo-Nazis, anti-Semitism or whatever hate group may have appropriated it unless I see it in the specific context of the Nazi flag. But in the U.S., displaying the symbol would get you expelled from your university or fired from your job. Just do a Google search for news articles if you think I'm making this up. Sure, the offensiveness of this may be obvious to European foreigners, but to Asian foreigners it's not, so we need to inform travellers about this so they don't get into trouble. The dog2 (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikivoyage is not concerned with employment. Foreign workers getting hired/fired are outside of our scope. If he were a tourist, the black person would've called him a racist and he would either made a decision to try and explain or just leave the idiot alone and likely opt not to approach anymore black people. In truth, though, you could be accused of racism for ANYTHING you say to or about a black person if someone wants to make the claim. Tell people you don't like Beyonce and some idiot will make a "racism" accusation. You could be completely polite but if someone really wants to they can twist it and say your politeness was "condescending" or whatever. But the perpetually-offended aren't something worth warning people about. We've arbitrarily listed watermelon and fried chicken, but we have no reason to disallow adding "grape soda" or any food or question that might offend someone of every other race. The fact of the matter is, people are not trying to be racist, so advice like "Don't accidentally be racist" with 2 cherry-picked examples is pointless. As I said, if this is the major issue you claim, why not just write "Avoid approaching black people whenever possible"? It's already implied by the claim that the mere mention of certain fruits and foods in their presence will make them lash out at you. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't want to get into this increasingly mad discussion about a mad topic, but I would say that Wikivoyage is absolutely concerned with employment, especially (if not exclusively) for workers in a country that is not their own. Why else do you think we have 'Work' sections in destination articles, or pages such as Working abroad and Business travel? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
There was discussion about that quite a while ago and it was agreed to only cover the bare minimum on those topics and confine the information to mostly the travel side (documents, visas, etc). We do not cover how to interview, how to be a "good employee", when/how to ask for a raise, office politics, sensitivity training, etc. "Work" is not even a required field and most articles do not include it. I doubt most users would notice if it disappeared from the site completely. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)